IN THY BODY DO I DWELL (THE PHYSICAL CONSTRUCT AS HOST)

Posted on March 3, 2024 by Reid Mukai

By Kingsley Dennis

The body is coming back into sight as a site for experimentation and as a target for a type of quasi-transcendence. Within the inverted world of the lesser reality, the physical body has always been recognized as the vehicle through which life is experienced. In other words, it is our avatar whilst in this realm. As such, it has always been a site of contestation.

In some religious circles, the body is seen as a material distraction from the Divine and its influence was seen as needing to be repressed and subjugated (which may include certain physical deprivations, including self-harm). Various religio-spiritual perspectives have regarded the physical body as an obstacle, a barrier, to a sense of the sacred. The other extreme is that the body is regarded as the ideal vehicle for experiencing the sensual and sensuous – it is a vessel for indulgence and decadent experience. Still, there has been no consensus reached over how to regard the vehicle of the human physical body.

In my earlier book – Hijacking Reality – I noted how recent narratives are trying to place the human body as a site of weakness. That is, the body is open and vulnerable to disease and infection; it succumbs to aging and exhaustion; it disallows the human being from the full range of experiences. In this light, narratives of transhumanism are attempting to gain ground as a way of offering an alternative to the ‘weak body.’ These, as I had discussed, are attempts to drive the human experience deeper into materialism and a technocratic agenda for a digital-hybridization program within our societies.

The Inversion is steering ever forward into deeper and deeper realms of materialism. It is utilizing a narrative of quasi-transcendence through embedding deeper into the myth of technological salvation. The lines are not so much being drawn but being blurred. American writer Philip K. Dick, famous for his science fiction books that question the nature and validity of reality, spoke about the blurring of boundaries between body and environment in his 1972 speech “The Android and the Human” –

“Our environment, and I mean our man-made world of machines, artificial constructs, computers, electronic systems, interlinking homeostatic components—all of this is in fact beginning more and more to possess what the earnest psychologists fear the primitive sees in his environment: animation. In a very real sense our environment is becoming alive, or at least quasi-alive, and in ways specifically and fundamentally analogous to ourselves.^1″

This quasi-aliveness of the environment that Dick speaks about is the animating stage where relations between the human body and the material world begin to blur (and merge). Much of Western spiritual-mystical practice is interpreted as a somatically-felt experience. The body is the instrument that receives and grounds the experience, whether it be in terms of the ‘great flash,’ ‘illuminating light,’ or the ‘bodily rush.’ The body is the human instrument for receiving, transforming, and sometimes transferring, energies. There are many ‘bodies’ in spiritual-mystic traditions, including the etheric, the astral, the ecstatic, the subtle, the higher, and others; the physical, material body is recognized as the densest of them all. Also, it is the ‘easy target’ since it resides fully within the material world and is open to social engineering and influence.

The body in history has always been a site of focus. It has helped define the experience of self/other and the outer/inner and has been regarded as the material vessel for the spiritual impulse. Perhaps for this reason, many societies around the world have, at one time or another, attempted to suppress the power and expression of the human body. It could be that the controlling agencies within the inverted world regard the balanced, correctly functioning human body as a portal for appropriately navigating the perceptive wavelengths of reality. Many of the mystical traditions placed a strong emphasis on the purification of the human body; on it being free from toxins and corruptive influences. In this way, the physical vessel was said to receive the ‘illuminations,’ or the ‘mercy’ of the sacred, divine impulse.

The body acts as an antenna for the nourishing inspirations/energies for the soul. What better way to block these illuminations than to corrupt the body’s purity through a polluting environment – socially, psychologically, and biologically. As such, the body has always been a site for the convergence of power and control. This body-power relationship has been a major theme in the work of French philosopher Michel Foucault. Foucault has deconstructed, in his critical history of modernity, how the body has been fought over as a site of power. The physical body is also regarded as a location of resistance against the establishment powers. It is a fixed place where an individual can be located, found, and held accountable. And now that our physical movements are continually tracked through the digital infosphere, there is even less chance to escape the eye of authoritative surveillance. If we cannot escape from our bodies then, it would appear, we are forever within the system.

The human body has always been accepted as a unit within the social matrix. This has also been expanded to define bodies in terms of social institutions: we have the body politic, the social body, the scientific body, the medical body, the body of an organization, etc. The once sacred site of the body, which was the vessel for somatic spiritual experiences, has been adopted, or co-opted, into a social construction of bodies that belong under control and subjugation of external authorities. In Gnostic terms, the body’s site of power has been referred to as those of the ‘sleepers’ and the ‘wakers.’ Sleepers are those whose inner self has yet to break through the layers of the body’s social conditioning.

The somatic spiritual experience has been seen as a threat to hierarchical societies because it exists beyond their bounds of power. This is one reason why ecstatic experiences, whether through spiritual or other means, have been suppressed, outlawed, and discredited by orthodox religions and mainstream institutions alike. Ecstatic experiences that can break down the thinking patterns and conditioning structures of the Inversion are alarming for institutions of socio-political power. How can you control, regulate, and discipline a body, energy, or experience that has no physical location? Such intangible forces, such as the power of baraka, are positively infectious and beyond bounds.[i] As cultural historian Morris Berman notes:

“The goal of the Church (any church) is to obtain a monopoly on this vibratory experience, to channel it into its own symbol system, when the truth is that the somatic response is not the exclusive property of any given religious leader or particular set of symbols.^2″

In recent times, there has been an increasing focus on what is termed the innate consciousness of the body, and which has been revealed through such techniques as muscle testing. It is innate because it is inborn (born in and of the body), and it is instinctual. Somatic consciousness then is another word for our intuitive intelligence. It is an intelligence that can be communicated through the body, and it is this which threatens those that seek to control the dreaming mind of humanity. However, the matrix of reality is not a clean-cut realm.

We exist in an anthropological environment where nature and culture cannot be neatly divided. The physical realm is a fusion of the real/imagined, and where subject/object is blurred. Yet now, this hybridity is being further enforced and coalesced through genetic engineering, implants, augmented reality, and the sciences of nanotechnology, biotechnology, and information technology (including artificial intelligence). The Inversion is attempting to gain our willing compliance through offering a form of transcendence that goes beyond the body and the bodily senses.

The Galactic Gaze

The dreaming mind has always been tempted and awed by the stars beyond. There is perhaps no living person who has not gazed up into the night firmament and wondered about the cosmos out there. And perhaps, there have been those persons who upon gazing up wondered whether they were not living within some kind of bubble. The dreamer’s world has often been depicted as a bubble reality, most notably by the Renaissance alchemists, as in this well-known engraving:

The Philosopher’s Stone lies outside of the realm of the Inversion; it can only be grasped by one who has exited from the dreamer’s reality bubble (or perceptual prison). For most people, the spiralling star tapestry of the cosmos is the first step of the beyond. Reason enough, then, for this to have become the new destination for the modern pioneers within the lesser reality.

The break from the body begins at an early age through social conditioning. To some extent, all individuals have to relinquish some of the contact they have with the innate intelligence of the body (including the body of the natural world) by being incorporated into the ‘social body.’ And as the social body becomes increasingly enmeshed within the digitized landscape, this alienation from the body will only likewise increase. Modern culture’s love affair with decadence, and the rise of sexualization and drug indulgence, all contribute to a desensitization of the body – even when the body is the medium of experience, such as in sexual experiences. As noted, this is a targeting of the ‘pure body’ so as to corrupt its potential for deciphering deeper layers within the Inversion. The body-medium for the life experience is also viewed by transhumanists as a hindrance upon the evolutionary journey toward an ‘immortal society’ that is destined for the stars.

This view is more keenly taken by mostly western and ‘elite’ types who have begun to feed themselves upon a modern cosmic-religious mythic consciousness. This is what Jasun Horsley refers to as a ‘Galactic religion,’ which seeks transcendence/ascension by leaving the planet and colonizing others. It is a ‘rich geek’ religion based on accelerating technologies and pushed by the major tech-titan companies. As Horsley notes, rather than ascension, it is the reverse: ‘It has to do with dissociation, the attempt of the traumatized psyche to split off from the body and float off into fantasy land, beyond the reach of reality and all the pain it entails. Bodies frozen on ice, souls lost in space, free, free from the terrible travails of the body.’³ In such contexts as these, and more, there is a trauma being experienced through the physical body. Trauma can be related to dysfunctional energy being trapped within the body, causing discomfort and disease. In an attempt to escape the body of the planet we are being forced to ‘techno-transcend’ the limitations of the biological human body.

To travel into the stars, we are told, requires us to upload our consciousness into machinic devices and/or ethereal cloudscapes. In a bid to escape the confines of a depleting ‘prison planet’ we are being asked to put our faith – and our consciousness – into a new techno-prison. Yet who shall be the new guards? This could entail the trauma of a new birth – re-enacting the prongs of the biological birth passage yet through entry into yet another realm of the Inversion. There seems to be no genuine exit of the dreaming mind through consciousness upload – only a leap into another programmable maze, yet this time perhaps with less benevolent programmers.

In the western psyche there appears to be an ongoing splintering between ‘inner space’ exploration and ‘outer space’ exploration. The techno-dream of space colonization is the new favoured trend whilst the inner space research of the psyche is promoted as a dangerous and trickster landscape. Outer space is the new undiscovered realm that offers hope against the twilight of the body (including the body of the earth). And yet such ‘Galactic pioneers’ seem driven less by a unified perception and more by forces arising within their splintered psyches that they have failed to integrate. These are the subconscious forces that grasp at survival, at any cost, and would willingly walk over the bodies of others to secure their own survival. Leaving the planetary body is only for the ‘lucky’ few, whilst the rest must remain grounded – or with their minds in cloudscape orbit. The trick of the Inversion is that there are endless doors to keep walking through, yet no exit to awaken out of. By walking out of one dreamworld into another we may think we are free, yet we remain imprisoned within the dream still. Or worse, we unknowingly become our very own prison guards.

No rockets will ever create enough thrust to take us where we truly need to go, for awakening from the gravity of the Inversion is an inner-space journey. It is the colonizing of the quiet kind – of ourselves. By striving to attain the orbital Overview Effect we are missing the real point, which is the ‘Inner view’ from within ourselves.

The Body as the Holy Host

The Inversion – our inverted world reality construct – is unsure what to make of the human physical body. Is it our saviour – our holy host? – or a danger to our own progress and a threat to the agenda of others? As I have written previously,[ii] the narratives of a new biopower have brought to the fore a medical-political establishment within many of our societies worldwide. The biology of control is now a major player within the current realm of lived experience. There is now a noticeable rush to gain a political-corporate control over the access, use, and sovereignty of the human body. In a very real sense, it is the individual’s last line of physical defence. Each individual is a conscious entity (a spiritual essence) that is operating within this material realm through the vehicle of the physical body. As such, we are uniting with a biological partner. We are a merged being: as it is said, a union of flesh and spirit. Whilst the spirit – the essential being – is immortal, it has to abide in its physical incarnation by the biological limitations of the bodily host. Because of this crucial fact, external control agendas are determined to not only gain power over the outer aspects of the body (it’s freedoms, utility, mobility, etc.,) but also, via interventions, to have control over its internal functioning (DNA code, intra-communication, and more).

The human body functions upon many varied levels and acts as many things – including as a receiver, filter, and transmitter of energies and information. It is only the false, manipulated narrative that posits the human body as a ‘biohazard.’ By using this designation, external agencies of authority can seek to further contain and control the movement of the body as well as gaining internal access through chemical and pharmaceutical interventions. These possibilities were foreseen by many, not least by the social philosopher and author Aldous Huxley. Even as far back as the 1950s, Huxley envisaged the encroachment of scientism to gain increasing intervention into the human body:

Meanwhile pharmacology, biochemistry and neurology are on the march, and we can be quite certain that, in the course of the next few years, new and better chemical methods for increasing suggestibility and lowering psychological resistance will be discovered. Like everything else, these discoveries may be used well or badly. They may help the psychiatrist in his battle against mental illness, or they may help the dictator in his battle against freedom.⁴

And yet, this is still a viewpoint based on the material and physical sciences. It does not represent a deeper, spiritual perspective. This was to be provided by the Austrian philosopher and proponent of spiritual science, Rudolf Steiner. In talks given during September-October 1917, Steiner had the presence of vision to discuss the later potential interventions and influence over the human body. He said that: ‘Taking a “sound point of view,” people will invent a vaccine to influence the organism as early as possible, preferably as soon as it is born, so that this human body never even gets the idea that there is a soul and a spirit.’⁵

Clearly, this shows that the human physical body is a site of target in an attempt to curb or block reception of spiritual forces. Through what may appear to be a ‘sound point of view,’ a range of socio-cultural narratives will be created and propagated, according to Steiner, that will push an agenda of increased medical intervention. And these medically backed ideas have the aim ‘to find a vaccine that will drive all inclination towards spirituality out of people’s souls when they are still very young, and this will happen in a roundabout way through the living body.’⁶ Humanity has arrived at that time now, if we observe current events and their related consequences. We are now at a time within the 21^st century where we are witnessing the transmutation of living beings – and bodies. The human being has arrived at a threshold previously unknown to it, and there are forces compelling the human to step over and through it. It is a threshold that will recode environments and bodies. The threshold is the point where a genetic deterritorialization process can begin, and from which we may witness the emergence of a new organism different from the current one. It is a threshold of recombination and recodification; a new assemblage that represents yet another phase within the Inversion. From here on, we are biologically vulnerable to an encroaching machinic impulse that, by its very nature, will morph bodily combinations into machinic connections.

Our bodies are reaching an exhaustion point. The crises we now face across the body of the earth is from a collapse of the individual, social, and psychological body. Already, the social mind is in trauma, and the body is showing this illness or dis-ease. The Inversion has made sure that the biological and psychological dimension has coalesced. The ripple of a bodily trauma is being felt across the planetary membrane as people are forced to unnaturally detach from the physical world around them. New physical arrangements of dislocation (lockdowns) and social avoidance are becoming established practices within our societies. These unnatural ordinances are creating cognitive and bodily dissonance. Bio-traumas have arisen that are affecting our sensibilities. New bodily phobias have been set in motion. This is the newly inverted threshold – a threshold of deterritorialization that has enforced a changing perception of the body. We are sensing alterations in human bodily awareness and receptivity. There is a deprivation too. The body is being pulled back from its natural organic terrain. It is being made to retreat from physical presence and away from the reassuring touch. It is as if the body is being reconfigured to devolve away from the sensual and into a new digitally articulated sensate. This bodily aliveness is being substituted by decomposition and the fear of decay and deterioration.

In the modern age, death has replaced sex as the modern taboo. The sanitized environment of the hospital has replaced the home as the place for passing away. The experience of death and dying has become detached from community life with the effect that emotion and closeness has been replaced by medical management. The dying body has become inverted into a thing of disgust and embarrassment. Death has now become something shameful – a forbidden process. Death is a modern scandal. Modern life has internalized the rejection of death, and we are coded to cringe at the thought of bodily deterioration. Death is a loser. To die is to lose, to fail. There is no room for failure within the deepening layers of machinic materialism and computational competition. Death can be replaced by tech-assisted immortality in the new ‘posthuman future.’ Alternatively, the body can be transcended through transhumanism so that death no longer haunts the halls of the physical flesh. These are the new imaginings in the realm of machinic desire. Humanity is on the threshold of venturing into an Inversion of codified imagination and upturned desires. Desire has overtaken pleasure, and it is the social sphere within the Inversion that creates and sustains this desirous torment and torture of the unattainable. And within the unattainable, greater forms of external control must be endorsed to compensate. For this reasoning, current forces have begun to establish new pathways of control over life processes. And this, by intent and not coincidence, aligns with the rise of the machinic impulse. The question that now needs to be asked is whether the machine impulse is evolutionary or devolutionary in terms of human life upon this planet.

References

¹Dick, Philip K. (1995) The Shifting Realities of Philip K. Dick: Selected Literary and Philosophical Writings (ed. Lawrence Sutin). New York: Vintage Books, p183

²Berman, Morris (1990) Coming to Our Senses: Body and Spirit in the Hidden History of the West. New York: HarperCollins, 146.

³Horsley, J. (2018). Prisoner of Infinity: UFOs, Social Engineering, and the Psychology of Fragmentation. London, Aeon Books, p189

⁴Huxley, A. (1959). Brave New World Revisited. London, Chatto & Windus, p107-8

⁵Steiner, Rudolf (2008) The Fall of the Spirits of Darkness. Forest Row: Rudolf Steiner Press, p85

⁶Steiner, Rudolf (2008) The Fall of the Spirits of Darkness. Forest Row: Rudolf Steiner Press, p199-200

[i] Baraka, a prominent concept in Islamic mysticism, refers to a flow of grace and spiritual power that can be transmitted.

[ii] Hijacking Reality: The Reprogramming & Reorganization of Human Life

Julian Rose: ‘Humanity in Hypnotic Thrall to a Techno-Industrial God’

Posted on August 20, 2023 by Reid Mukai

By Julian Rose

Source: 21st Century Wire

So here we are. For yes, this is where we are – if by ‘we’ one understands the current materialistically imprisoned post industrial world – driven on by the relentless force of globalisation.

Brussels, still a remarkably human city by today’s standards, has the misfortune of housing the European Union HQ, which is not a very human conglomerate. And what goes on in it is equally devoid of humanity. For it is about being ‘big, central and dominating’.

Big, central and dominating is the future of the planet if you subscribe to the techno-industrial mind’s two dimensional determinism. In the soothing words of Klaus Schwab and Yuval Noah Harari, it is to be an Information Technology/Artificial Intelligence future, in which Schwab tells us “we will have nothing and will be happy”.

The mobile phone tower and mast which tops the temple of techno-industrial prowess, is an ugly, spindly piece of steel which is an expression of dominance in its own right. The vast global infrastructure formed by these Saturnian steel structures carry with them a penetrating EMF amplified soup of toxicity.

It is this ‘network’ which acts as the gateway to the virtual reality world of those who depend on it for their ‘signals’. Signals that have an abstracted kind of dominance and pronounced tendency to thin the blood and blur the brain.

The majority of messages that come through this gateway concern how to get on in ‘the system’.

How to get from A to B faster; news faster; financial reports faster; connections with family and friends faster; everything faster.

Being permanently plugged-in to this hyper electromagnetic crossroads of life is said to be the only way to ‘stay in touch’, to be a participant in the mental matrix; to be part of ‘the programme’.

But already twenty years ago I decided to cut my ties with this programme. Dispensing with the mobile phone turned out to be an act of liberation, soon to be followed by the ousting of the TV.

Big Brother was consigned to the back seat and I saw that a life that belonged to myself still existed, all be it with the proviso that one prioritised one’s values with a solid dose of determination to be true to that which is ‘real’ in life.

Perhaps this is why I can see so clearly how those who continue to participate in the ‘programme’ are running blindly towards an uncompromisingly sheer cliff-face, and how their voracious demands on the natural environment are increasingly undermining her natural resilience.

I can see something particularly shocking – that this frenetic rush to the cliff face and the great consumption of finite resources it involves – has no other purpose than playing-out a quasi demonic fascination with ever more refined toys of distraction. Distraction from the real pulse of life.

Yet this techno-industrial suicide machine is staffed by humans who appear not to recognise that their joint mission is programmed to end in collapse.

On the contrary, they seem to think that by increasing the efficiency and speed of the means of travel, it will somehow consummate its own need to arrive at where it is headed for. Where or what that is – simply never gets asked.

However, the psychotic gods of insentient ‘progress’ who designed the programme have built into it a series of ‘events’ which reach a certain conclusion in something they call the Transhuman. A robotic state of computer connected and controlled brain power for those able to pay for it.

To pay for the right to be dehumanised and rendered devoid of the need – and indeed ability – to think. Freed from emotion and freed from a soul based link to one’s Creator.

Stations on the way to this dark point of human annulment are laid-out under the WEF creed known as ‘The Great Reset’. A ‘Reset’ from human to non human.

Here are some of stations along the Great Reset route to the Transhuman:

The cessation of food grown in soil and the manufacturing of synthetic food produced in laboratories (at least six of which are already in production).

The end of farming the land as we know it and the removal of redundant farmers and country dwellers into 5 and 6G controlled total surveillance ‘smart cities’.

Countryside and farm landscapes redesigned to accommodate ‘rewilding’ projects and gated access to designated ‘leisure sites’ for those who can afford access.

The end of bank notes and coinage, replaced by a centrally controlled digital currency whose availability will depend upon one’s ‘social credit’ a la China.

The confiscation of one’s assets and private property with the option to ‘rent’ aspects of them back from the corporate state that is to become the new owner.

‘Self-autonomous’ 5G guided transportation systems operating between major cities.

100% surveillance via satellite and ‘the internet of everything’ and the profligate use of algorithms to pick-up any signs of resistance in communications.

The repression of true spirituality in favour of a ‘one world religion’.

Deliberate blurring of sexual delineation ‘man/woman’ and the decline of normal sexual reproduction.

Sperm-counts further reduced due to de-vitaminised synthetic GMO foods, vaccinations and polluted air and water – population control.

Enforced ‘15 minute cities’ as centres of local authority control.

Designer gene-altered babies via laboratory cloning of DNA sequences and cell tissues.

The removal of certain words from the common language, particularly poetic and spiritual ones.

Real art reduced to pseudo art as an expression of the will of the state, including dark-side ritual.

‘Medical health’ seen as the sole domain of Big Pharma with natural medicine outlawed.

Further media/government control over the passing of public information.

There is more, much more. But this is enough to show the basic composition of the stations on the way to ‘Transhumanism’. The arrival point of which is said to be circa 2035.

Behind this in-your-face destruction of hard won human liberties is a vast global propaganda/indoctrination exercise already in existence for more than two decades and built around the now infamous ‘Zero carbon by 2045’ or ‘Net Zero’ in news-speak (Orwell).

When challenged by those still able to question the need for these deadly impositions, the answer is always the same “To save the world from Global Warming.”

This piece of acute brainwashing, initially devised at the Club of Rome in 1972, is key to the whole ‘programme’. As long as enough people buy into it for long enough, the slavery exercise will be irreversible. Based on the current rate of awakening, the discovery that anthropogenic Global Warming is a mega lie will likely be neutralised by the impositions already in place to prevent an uprising.

The techno-industrial god will then have served its purpose. Like the rocket booster that gets the capsule into orbit, it will have taken the majority of mankind over the brink into abject slavery to its hypnotic convenience culture, before imploding in on itself and taking much of humanity and nature’s life sustaining diversity with it.

BUT, all this can be avoided. It doesn’t have to happen. It won’t happen. Our lives do not depend upon adopting the smart technology of tomorrow, today. We won’t any longer be seduced by ‘convenience’ once we recognise it is leading to our self destruction, will we?

We will retain sufficient will-power to get shot of this addiction to the IT/AI life inhibiting distractions that make up the mind controlled road to Armageddon.

The only way to recognise just how diabolical is the trap that has been set for us – and that we have set for ourselves – is to get a grip on our sense of deeper purpose in this life. To make an unbreakable commitment to listen and respond to the call of our souls. The true self. And then pull this true self out of any association with the metaverse mincing machine.

Let no one in possession of a soul ever allow himself/herself to become processed into a sub human product of the techno-industrial behemoth. Stick with what’s solid, what’s real – and ditch the counterfeit virtual world that snares the unweary and turns once healthy minds into casualties of a blind rush to a dystopian digital nowhere land.

When Dissent Ends, Transhumanism Reigns And Digitization Rules, Humanity Will Cease To Be Human

Posted on July 17, 2023 by Reid Mukai

By Gary Barnett

Source: GaryDBarnett.com

“The only thing worth globalizing is dissent.”

~ Arundhati Roy

Self-defense comes in many forms, but all defense of self begins and ends with dissent, non-compliance, disobedience, saying no to any and all rule, and never allowing aggression against mind and body; mental or physical. Without dissent, defense is not possible, because when voluntary compliance is the prevailing behavior, whether sought, desired, or not, all defense mechanisms are effectively disarmed. In other words, silence in the face of injustice, immorality, terror, or tyranny, creates a condition of weakness, submission, and irresponsibility, which are all the fodder of indifference. When you say nothing, when you do not say no, when you take no action against evil, you commit evil. By not speaking out, and by not responding, you have spoken loudly, and openly committed an act of cowardice. The ultimate blame lies not just with the aggressor in this circumstance, but also equally with he who hides and remains silent.

In “Beyond Good and Evil,” Friedrich Nietzsche wrote: “He who fights with monsters should be careful lest he thereby become a monster. And if thou gaze into an abyss, the abyss will also gaze into thee.” This is an accurate description of the phenomenon of becoming what one lives, so if you live in a state of indifference, ignoring the evil around you, accepting it in order to avoid conflict and responsibility, you become the evil you have chosen to ignore. The dark abyss in this circumstance, is created by your own inaction against it.

What we face as a society, is the most tremendous threat ever perceived or active in the history of mankind. Do you scoff at this seemingly ‘bold’ pronouncement? If so, you are already fooled, and a major contributor to the vast problems rampant in our world today. Instead of the State just singularly seeking war, the continuance of the bogus Federal Reserve System, isolated government corruption, communism, fascism, or any broad-based totalitarian assault on certain segments of society, we are all being bombarded from a thousand different directions at once with all these atrocities and many more, including attacks on our freedom and sovereignty, on our minds and bodies, and on every aspect of our being. Due to the colossal advances in technology, which in many more ways than not are being used against us in order to build a literal transhuman world run by technocratic means, we are facing what could be considered a technological Armageddon, where all control over humanity will be isolated in the hands of the most powerful few. To accept this, to treat it as normal or eminent, is a most fatal error, and one that could determine our fate in perpetuity.

When humanity ceases to exist in any natural form, when male and female become one, when transhumanism and mind control are inescapable realities, when perversion is commonly accepted, the presence of life that we have all known to be magical and a wonder, will have disappeared. The world being designed is not a world of love, hope, and dreams, it is a nightmare of horror, and those pursuing this downfall of man have already lost all human characteristics. They are monsters, so we must fight and defeat them without becoming monsters ourselves.

There is a reason that the children, beginning in infancy, are targeted by State indoctrination, drugs, chemicals, bioweapon injections masquerading as ‘vaccines,’ insane propaganda, distraction, gross perversion, and are pulled away from family mentally and physically throughout their lives. This, in and of itself, if allowed to continue, will guarantee mind destruction of multiple future generations, and that will secure a fully dumbed-down, compliant, and obedient proletariat mass in the future. At that point, total control by the technocrats over humanity will have been achieved.

While technology has the capability to accomplish many great things, in the hands of these monsters who seek universal control, it can also be used to destroy us. Many refer to this technological phenomenon as ‘artificial intelligence,’ (AI) but there is no such thing. This false terminology is being used against us, as machines are not intelligent, they are programmed by intelligence, or so it is believed. When man becomes a machine, real intelligence ends, and a programmed society of slaves is the result. AI is ‘defined’ as “perceiving, synthesizing, and inferring information–demonstrated by computers, as opposed to intelligence displayed by humans or other animals.” Intelligence is defined as the ability to learn, reason, and understand, so honest intelligence cannot be artificial, and machines are still machines. The transhuman digitization of man will mean the end of all traditional life as we know it.

The bulk of this society, has already succumbed to a digital world, and relies on what is falsely labeled ‘social media’ as parent, family, and friend, disregarding the natural state of personal communication, love, companionship, debate, and the grandeur of nature. At this point, the future is not owned by you, but is owned by your masters. All privacy has disappeared, and most all private and financial transactions are captured and data-based. Every aspect of life is now tracked, traced, used, surveilled, restricted, censored, taxed, and every activity imaginable requires licensure (paid permission slip) by the State. You are already a slave, whether you realize it or not.

The plot continues to thicken, as centrally-controlled digital currencies (CBDCs) are being rolled out around the world, which will allow for most every individual to be fully contained and regulated. This will lead to mass restrictions as to what you are allowed to do, where you may travel – if at all, what food you must eat, what medical care you may or may not receive, what State stipend you will be allotted, how much energy you will be permitted to use, and on, and on. Everything in your existence will depend on behavior modification; in other words, do as you are instructed by the State technocratic rulers, or lose everything, as your entire life will be technologically sanctioned.

It is imperative to understand that everything you think you know about technology, and technological advances, is likely at a minimum, 20 years behind. Every so-called new discovery and new technology recognized as such, are not new at all. What the military has now, and is working on today, is unknown to most all except the very few at the top of the pyramid of power. To understand and grasp this concept, should strike fear in the hearts of man. The internet, and therefore, the internet of things, was not discovered and implemented by some computer geek, but was designed and created by the military through the “Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency.” (DARPA) Getting to this terroristic time in our history was no accident, and was intentionally planned long ago. We have little time left to stop this totalitarian hell that has been created in order to destroy what we know as the human race.

Will you continue to sit on the sideline, keeping your eyes closed, your ears covered, and your mouth shut, or will you stand up and defend your freedom and life, and that of your family? The only solution, as I have often said, is through active dissent. Say no to the State, disobey, do not comply with any tyrannical order, and do so as individuals en masse. No one can do this for you, but it can and should be done by many independent freedom-minded individuals. Asking someone else for a solution for the masses as a collective, is worthless, and exposes apathy at a level that if practiced by the herd as it has been for so long, the end of humanity will surely be our destiny.

“Has there ever been a society which has died of dissent? Several have died of conformity in our lifetime.”

Transhumanism and the Philosophy of the Elites

Posted on July 11, 2023 by Reid Mukai

By Danica Thiessen

Source: PANDA

In 2004, when Foreign Policy asked eminent scholar Francis Fukuyama to write an article answering the question, What is the world’s most dangerous idea?, he responded with a piece titled Transhumanism. Fukuyama argued that the transhumanist project will use biotechnology to modify life until humans lose something of their ‘essence’, or fundamental nature. Doing so will disrupt the very basis of natural law upon which, he believes, our liberal democracies are founded (Fukuyama, 2004). For Fukuyama, these losses lay unrecognised beneath a mountain of promise for a techno-scientific future of imaginative self-improvement.

Currently, the Fourth Industrial Revolution, in which transhumanism plays a central guiding role, is shaping the policies of global corporations and political governance (Philbeck, 2018: 17). The converging technologies of this revolution are nanotechnology, biotechnology, information technology, cognitive sciences (NBIC), and artificial intelligence (Roco and Bainbridge, 2002). The political class and the new technology elite routinely tell us that ‘the age of AI has arrived’ (Kissinger et al., 2021). Simultaneously, modern humans have also become increasingly dependent on advanced technologies and the complex systems they enable. These changes have presented new challenges to old questions, namely: what does it mean to be human? And what future do we want for ourselves?

From the hype of super-intelligence to self-assembling nanobiology, the world can seem increasingly science-fictional. Contemporary technological society is “harder and harder to grasp”, is full of “disruptions…that move ever faster”, and is confronting us with “situations that seem outrageously beyond the scope of our understanding” (Schmeink, 2016: 18).

This paper aims to further our critical engagement with an ideology that is emerging across influential sectors of society. With this aim in mind, I will make three essential arguments: Firstly, transhumanism is a movement based on a techno-scientific belief system that is striving towards the technological enhancement of biology and, in this regard, is self-consciously promoting bio-social engineering. Secondly, the technologies of transhumanism have the potential to bring tremendous financial and political gains to corporations and governments who are not incentivised to seek out nor address their potential dangers. Thirdly, the discontent towards transhumanism is diverse and comes overridingly from the threat to traditional values, nature-based ways of life, freedom, equality, and the loss of bodily autonomy to the will of those who operate these powerful systems.

Much of the current scholarship on transhumanism focuses on the intellectual contribution of the movement, with minimal work assessing socio-political impacts. This neglect is worrying since, within the reality of global capitalism, transhumanism may be overridingly motivated by economic and political forces as it may be by ideology. Furthermore, perhaps only a minority of humans may be able to access certain NBIC technologies or utilise them for profits (McNamee and Edwards, 2006: 515). Of course, the socio-economic ramifications may be culturally and politically disruptive in unanticipated ways. It is this overwrought relationship—of transhumanism, the global economy, profitable science, human nature, and traditional belief systems—that demand further critical examination.

Transhumanism: A brief history

Transhumanism is a predominantly Anglo-American movement that has flourished since the 1980s in “American circles of science fiction fans” and with “computer experts and techno-geeks” (Manzocco, 2019: 36). Today, California’s Silicon Valley, with its culture of technological optimism and imaginative entrepreneurship, is the hub of transhumanist thought and innovation. Though scholars have noted that there is no single definition of transhumanism, the essence of transhumanist ideology is to use science and technology to re-design and re-shape the human condition away from randomness, imperfectability, and decay, towards order, perfectibility, and control (Bostrom, 2005: 14).

This ideology emerged in early 20^th Century Britain. There is a clear continuity of ideas between current proponents of transhumanism and those who were writing before the Second World War of the potential of science to shape the trajectory of nature, while fostering international cooperation and governance. They included British scientists and thinkers such as Julian Huxley (credited with first using the word Transhumanism in the 1950s), his brother Aldous, and his grandfather Thomas Huxley, as well as their colleagues J.B.S. Haldane, H.G. Wells, J.D. Bernal, and Bertrand Russell. These influential thinkers and internationalists were writing and working on promoting political and scientific outlooks that would form the basis of a century of scientific transhumanist thought (Bostrom, 2005: 4-6; Bohan, 2019: 74-108). The subjects they explored still attract transhumanists today: behavioural conditioning, genetic control, technological augmentation, artificial foods and wombs, space travel, life extension, and total disease control. These and other themes circle around the assertion that nature, including human nature, operates optimally under scientific adjustment and management (Bohan, 2019: 99-100).

Early transhumanists (or proto-transhumanists) viewed techno-scientific advancement as a cure for ‘primitive’ human nature (anger, violence, excess fertility), physical limitations (disease and possibly death), political ignorance, and international conflict. It was the Enlightenment ideal of mastery over nature, including human populations, that Aldous Huxley so aptly demonstrated in his dystopian novel, Brave New World. Huxley’s novel, written in 1931, illustrates a scientific dystopia where transhumanist aims (genetic engineering, anti-aging interventions, biotechnology and enhancement drugs) are used to manage society implicitly through pleasure rather than explicitly through force. Huxley’s depictions were based less on his prophetic abilities and more on his intimate knowledge of the possibilities of social engineering as discussed and promoted by the scientific minds with whom he mingled. His later essay, Over-population, surmises that his novel’s projections were “coming true much sooner than” anticipated (Huxley, 1960: 1).

Notably, Aldous’s brother, Julian Huxley, also wrote about the ills of global overpopulation while promoting the genetic control (‘improvement’) of populations through eugenics (Hubback, 1989; Huxley, 1933). His 1957 essay, Transhumanism, claimed that man was the “managing director” of “evolution on this earth” (Huxley, 2015:12-13). He was very involved with Britain’s Eugenics Society for over three decades, serving as Vice-President and then President, as well as supporting “campaigns for voluntary sterilization…and for negative eugenics measures against persons carrying the scientific stigma of ‘mental defect’” (Weindling, 2012: 3). Julian Huxley was the first Director-General of UNESCO and founder of the World Wildlife Fund (Byk 2021: 141-142). In this role, he promoted the ideology of an international, scientifically-founded welfare state to further his aim of liberating “the concept of God from personality” because “religions as all human activities is always an unfinished work” (Byk, 2021:149), (Huxley, 1957:10). Julian Huxley’s work and writing envisioned an international social engineering project based on rational scientific management that promised to elevate humanity towards global peace (Sluga, 2010; Byke, 2021:146).

Philosophical and Spiritual Transhumanism: Towards a Technological Utopia

Transhumanism has a wide variety of interpretations, similar to how a major religion is expressed with a divergence of commitment, beliefs and motivations. In fact, many scholars consider transhumanism to be a novel, emerging religion with significant parallels to Christian eschatology (deGrey et al., 2022; O’Gieblyn, 2017). The vast majority of transhumanists do not accept a monotheistic ‘God’ or the moral restraints of traditional religions, but instead endow “technology with religious significance,” leading scholars to define it as “a secularist faith” (Tirosh-Samuelson, 2012: 710).

While not all transhumanists partake in techno-spiritual views, transhumanists essentially view technology as the redemption for fallible biology. For some, these perspectives were inspired by the philosophical work of Pierre Teilhard de Chardin (1881-1955). Tielhard de Chardin was a palaeontologist and Jesuit who believed that a “worldwide network would be woven between all men about earth” and that a “God-like entity” would form from a future “conscious, collective, omniscient mind—the Omega Point” (Bohan, 2019:92). The concept of technological ‘transcendence’ has continued to be central to Transhumanism in conversations about the worldwide web, the Internet of Bodies, artificial intelligence, and the ‘Singularity’, which is the belief that human-machine intelligence will grow exponentially and reach a point where humanity will be thrust into a posthuman age (Bohan, 2019:96; Kurzweil, 2005). The belief that humans (or rather posthumans) can become immortal and ‘god-like’ in a future machine-dominated age—complete with astral travel and digital telepathic communication—is why, in its philosophical form, many scholars understand transhumanism as a techno-materialist religious movement.

In an attempt to consolidate such a complex movement, transhumanist philosopher Nick Bostrom—current head of the Future of Humanity Institute at Oxford University, and transhumanism’s most legitimate academic—co-founded the World Transhumanist Association in 1998 (Bostrom, 2005:12-13). Out of this work, the Transhumanist Declaration was drafted. It consists of bold statements such as: Humanity will be radically changed by technology in the future. We foresee the feasibility of redesigning the human condition. The Declaration concludes with: Transhumanism advocates for the well-being of all sentience whether in artificial intellects, humans, posthumans, or non-human mammals. The Declaration makes it clear that transhumanism is an unprecedented social engineering project promoting the desirability of using “technology to push the boundaries of what it means to be human and to transcend our biological condition”, as described by Mark O’Connell, author of To Be a Machine (Mayor, 2018).

Two American transhumanist philosophers who have worked, since the 1980s, to spread transhumanist ideas, are Max More and Natasha Vita-More. They are entrepreneurs in the cryonics industry, which deep-freezes human corpses (called ‘patients’) with the aim of future revival (McKibbin, 2019:184-185). Vita-More, in a recent interview, emphasised that the essence of transhumanism is, “a transition of being human-animal into becoming more mechanised using different devices and technologies to enhance humans into whatever they feel that they are.” This very Californian-esque promise of becoming ‘whatever you want to be’ could result in a more mechanised, or augmented, version of you. We already see the emergence of this new ‘becoming whoever you want’ phraseology in the popular acceptance of enhancement chemicals, biotechnology, and videogames. A pantheon of new technologies is on the horizon: exoskeletons, virtual reality, robotics, body-changing pharmaceuticals, remote-controlled nanotechnology, artificial foods, brain implants and synthetic organs. Adopting these technologies is a part of what Max More describes as becoming the Overhuman, otherwise known as the Posthuman: if you are Transhuman you are essentially a transitional human.

In The Overman in the Transhuman, More attributes attitudes in transhumanism to Nietzsche’s philosophy, arguing that the overhuman is the “meaning-giving” concept meant to “replace the basically Christian worldview” of Nietzsche’s time (and, to a lesser extent, our times). More holds that the current “relevance of the posthuman” is that it ultimately gives meaning to scientifically-minded people” (More, 2010:2). In this influential paper, More asks the reader to “take seriously Nietzche’s determination to undertake ‘a revaluation of all values’” (More, 2010:3). Since a modern overhuman upgrade will depend on human gene editing and other biotechnology applications (such as Elon Musk’s Neuralink) becoming legally available, More’s call to ‘reevaluate values’ is understandable. Issues raised on both sides of the academic debate concern which values and traits would be genetically chosen, and to what extent human enhancement will be voluntary (Levin, 2018).

While earlier Anglo-American eugenicists argued for the removal of anti-social genes by sterilisation, some modern transhumanist proponents have argued that moral bioenhancement, through selective gene editing, should become compulsory (Persson and Savulescu, 2008). Many notable transhumanists argue for procreative bioenhancement of offspring by the parents (Levin, 2018:38). Transhumanist advocates Ingmar Persson and Julian Savulescu believe moral enhancement should become obligatory like “education and water fluoridation,” since “those who should take them are least likely to be inclined” (Persson and Savulescu, 2008: 22). Transhumanist Niel Levy argues that “cognitive enhancement could be required,” much as vaccines currently are (Levy, 2013:38). Scholar Susan Levin writes that allowing a techno-scientific transhumanist vision to shape the “form that society takes” may lend itself to “socio-political requirements that would clash with…liberal democracy” (Levin, 2018:50). She also argues that when transhumanists use “public health analogies and reasoning” to “justify vigorous enhancement” they are putting into serious question their commitment to autonomy (Levin, 2018:48). In this way, the coercive vaccine mandates used during the Covid-19 pandemic can be interpreted as an early warning signal for how future bio-enhancements are likely to be accompanied by forceful moralistic and utilitarian arguments.

Ingmar Person, Julian Savulescu, and Niel Levy are prominent ethicists at the University of Oxford; all three advocate for mandatory genetic enhancement despite the trail of 20th century trauma wrought by grandiose social- and eugenic engineering projects. Does this suggest that a moral framework based on utilitarian arguments and flawed metaphysics remains fundamentally unchanged in public health governance since the last century? In his recent book God and Gaia: Science, Religion and Ethics on a Living Planet, scholar Michael Northcott argues that a growing “post-human agenda” has become central to policies around public health—referred to as “biosecurity”—which has very little to do with authentic “human health or health of the environment” (Northcott, 89). The consequences of this ideology became apparent during the recent mandating of the experimental gene-altering vaccines, and could represent what Northcott refers to as “automatism”. This is when we are culturally obligated to “use new technologies regardless of the possible consequences” because of a utilitarian ethic of the “managerial goal of efficiency” (Northcott, 2022: 114). To underestimate the suffering caused by one-size-fits-all public health measures is inadequate scholarship, yet despite this, only a minority of academics have openly questioned the use of coercive genetic therapy during the Covid-19 pandemic.

A clash between individual rights and a movement that aims to “re-design the human condition” seems inevitable. In the words of transhumanist scholar Nick Bostrom, “human nature is a work-in-progress, a half-baked beginning that we can learn to remould in desirable ways” (Bostrom, 2005: 3). As the co-founder of the World Transhumanist Association, David Pearce said,

“…if we want to live in paradise, we will have to engineer it ourselves. If we want eternal life, then we’ll need to re-write our bug-ridden code and become god-like…only high-tech solutions can ever eradicate suffering from the living world”.DOEDE, 2009: 47

It is human nature that often comes into direct conflict with massive social engineering projects. Understanding transhumanism as a bio-social engineering project of unprecedented scale is a useful perspective in that it focuses the potential conflicts as value-based and ideological rather than as a direct result of specific scientific advances (Broudy and Arakaki, 2020). Furthermore, the term ‘social engineering’ is in itself inadequate, in that a utopia that aims to phase out Homo sapiens, while making way for the new, enhanced posthuman, is historically unprecedented (Bauman, 2010), and is possibly an energetic form of nihilism or an expression of ‘losing oneself’ to an intoxication with machine power, inspired by what scholars identify as “machine fetishism” (Geisen, 2018: 6). Yet, the surprising willingness to martyr one’s physical self to attain paradise has always been particular to our species (Pugh, 2017).

Corporate Transhumanism: The Pursuit of Wealth and Power

In congruence with the scholarly work available, I have focused on the ideas of philosophical and academic transhumanists, but transhumanism is an ideology reaching far beyond discourse. Though under-discussed in the academic literature, the movement is advanced by corporate and political transhumanists, and transhumanist scientists. Massive corporate and state investment in NBIC technologies rely on specialised scientists working in the military, elite universities, and corporate laboratories to push the frontiers of reality with robotics, artificial intelligence and biotechnology (Mahnkopf, 2019: 11). These scientists are designing technologies with such potential that the world’s most powerful players, such as the Chinese Communist Party and the US Department of Defense (DOD), are deeply involved. In January 2023, Harvard University’s esteemed chemist Charles Leiber was on trial for lying to the DOD about his involvement with the Wuhan University of Technology over his work on “revolutionary nanomaterials.” In his Harvard laboratories, Leiber and his assistants have created nanoscale wires that can record electrical signals from neurons (Silver, 2022). Nanowire brain implants were designed by Leiber to “spy on and stimulate individual neurons” (Gibney, 2015:1). In an age where neurotechnology and mind-machine interfaces are changing the nature of warfare, the contested power-potential of transhumanist techno-science is quickly apparent (DeFranco, 2019).

The transhumanist vision for the future should not be viewed outside of the ‘technological arms race’ or a competitive, utilitarian mindset that informs business, war-making, and our cultural esteem of scientific research. This suggests that more research understanding corporate and political transhumanists is critical in analysing how this group is actively involved with determining humanity’s future. Political leaders with a sharp sense for power understand that machine intelligence and enhancement may determine the world’s winners and losers (Kissinger et al., 2021). As Vladimir Putin articulates: “Artificial Intelligence is the future, not only for Russia, but for all of humankind. It comes with colossal opportunities but also threats that are difficult to predict. Whoever becomes the leader in this sphere will become the ruler of the world” (Karpukhin, 2017). The elite fascination with transhumanist technologies concerns the potential power inherent in the technology itself—and in who creates and controls it. The influential historian and speaker, Yuval Noah Harari, expressed this view in his 2021 Davos Summit presentation where he said that technology “might allow human elites to do something even more radical than just build digital dictatorships. By hacking organisms, elites may gain the power to re-engineer the future of life itself. Because once you hack something, you can usually geo-engineer it.”

Harari is a frequently featured speaker at the World Economic Forum (WEF) and associated events. The WEF is currently acknowledged as one of the “most significant case studies of private authority with global impact” (Vincent and Dias-Trandade, 2021: 711). Criticised as being a “transnational elite club, with high media visibility” and a neoliberal “agenda-setting power,” the WEF can be understood as an “instrument for global geopolitical domination” (Vincent and Dias-Trandade, 2021: 711). At the very least, it is a forum where heads of state, CEOs of multi-billion-dollar companies, and academics who intelligently promote strategic values, are encouraged to collaborate and shape the global future. On WEF and other media collaborative platforms, Harari eloquently argues for humanity to “break out of the organic realms to the inorganic realm” with the creation of a new type of machine human so much more sophisticated than us that our current form will be more drastically different from it than “Neanderthals” or “chimpanzees” are from us today (BBC, 2016). Perhaps this epochal vision is received with welcome at the WEF because it boldly asserts a future dystopia for those who choose to ignore this high-tech revolution. It may act as a motivational warning to “acculturate” or “disappear.”

Scholar Kasper Schiølin (2020) believes WEF agenda setting is accomplished through strategic political and corporate marketing and the discourse of “future essentialism” where the “fabrication of power” and of an inevitable global destiny is reinforced by “sociotechnical imaginaries” and “epochalism.” Future essentialism is the construct of narratives that use “historical analysis…speculative estimates…and hard statistics” to disseminate an idea of a “fixed and scripted…future” that can be “desirable if harnessed” but also “dangerous if humanity fails” to accept the vision. “Epocholism” is an attempt to capture “The Spirit of the Age” and promote a feeling that the current times are of unsurpassed historical significance. These strategies, Schiølin (2020:553) convincingly argues, are how the “WEF produces a moral-political universe around The Fourth Industrial Revolution (4IR).” Is it possible that these techniques can create a narrative of urgency, significance, and global opportunity that can persuade us (or our leaders) to participate in a transnational, transhumanist future?

Klaus Schwab is the founder of the WEF and the one responsible for conceptualising and promoting this revolution, which was announced in his 2016 book The Fourth Industrial Revolution. Schwab (2017) describes the 4IR as a social re-setting (named the ‘Great Reset’) enabled by “a range of new technologies that are fusing the physical, digital and biological worlds, impacting all disciplines, economies and industries, and even challenging ideas about what it means to be human.” Analyses of the 4IR conclude that the rate of technological change is supposed to “accelerate” and be “exponential”, covering the Internet of Things (IoT), AI, automation, genetic engineering of humans and natural biology, nanomedicine, smart cities (where sensors are embedded all over the environment), a sci-fi enabled military, and algorithms with political agency (Trauth-Goik, 2021: 3).

Political scientist Klaus-Gerd Giesen convincingly argues that transhumanism is the “dominant ideology” of the 4IR, having become a “grand narrative” for politicians while “advancing the interests of multinational tech giants” (Geisen, 2018: 10). Giesen views this revolution as a “significant rupture in the evolution of capitalism” as well as the tradition of humanism, arguing that “transhumanist machinism” is “fundamentally anti-human—not least because the machine is by definition inhuman” (Geisen, 2018: 6). With global 5G networks, the Internet of Things and of Bodies, and the convergence of the NBIC technologies, the “body as market” (Geisen, 2018: 10), or what Céline Lafontaine defines as the corps-marché (Céline, 2014), is complete. The sheer mass of consumption will exponentially rise with marketable ‘smart’ products: “wearable tech, autonomous vehicles, biochips, bio sensors” and other new materials (Mahnkopf, 2019: 2). This is a materially focused future where consumer upgrades are baked into the system, so it’s no wonder that corporate monopolies such as Amazon, Apple, Facebook, Google, and Microsoft, the “new industrial kings” are actively promoting this revolution (Mahnkopf, 2019: 14).

In his book, Falter: Has the Human Game Begun to Play Itself Out?, the environmentalist Bill McKibben writes that, “the Silicon Valley tycoons are arguably the most powerful people on earth” (McKibben, 2019: 183). North American West Coast transhumanist visionaries are an avant-garde community of ultra-rich technologists, businesspeople and inventors who are idolised by the media and who collaborate extensively with the US State to advance their aims. Eric Schmidt illustrates the collaboration common between US State defence organs, academia, and giant technology corporations (Conger and Metz, 2020). With a net worth of $23 billion, Schmidt was the Executive Chairman of Google and is now the current Chairman of the National Security Commission on Artificial Intelligence (NSCAI) for the US Department of Defense, where he advised President Biden to reject a ban on AI-driven autonomous weapons (Shead, 2021). Schmidt believes that artificial intelligence will “govern society” and be “perfectly rational”, outdating and rendering useless human intuition and knowledge. As with most tech billionaires, Schmidt has set up a private charity, Schmidt Futures, and has so far donated a billion dollars towards his AI educational aims (Philanthropy News Digest, 2019). While he admits that he did not design Google to regulate ‘misinformation’ more effectively, censorship is increasing with the accelerated abilities of AI (working with humans) to moderate and remove content on the Internet (Desai, 2021).

Many of our most influential technologies come from programmes at the US Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA). DARPA funds ‘blue sky’ technology research and is credited with inventing the Internet, GPS, virtual reality, and drones. The agency is now set on advancing human augmentation both in and off the battlefield, with the goal of mastering brain-computer neural-interfaces (Krishnan, 2016). Arati Prabhakar is the former head of DARPA, and Chief Science Advisor to President Biden. Prabhakar, like the prior head of DARPA, Regina Dugan, moves between working with technology companies in Silicon Valley and the US Department of Defense. Like most, she is enthusiastic about a transhumanist future of augmentation, and advocates for this as a matter of national security. And yet, she also admits that this “will bring surprises that we may not like. For generations we have thought about technologies that change our tools – but this is about technology that changes us.” We already have ample evidence that our current technologies, particularly wireless devices and chemicals, are physically changing our human (and planetary) biology, but the aims of DARPA and the DoD are more ambitious and revolve around the complete mastery of evolution (including the human genome) and natural systems (including the human population) using technology (Carr, 2020). This is exemplified in the recent, far-reaching US Executive Order for Advancing Biotechnology, which states that “we need to develop genetic engineering technologies” to “write circuitry for cells and predictably program biology in the same way in which we write software and program computers.” The order states that this is to “help us achieve our societal goals.” These societal goals are central to what the White House identifies as the “bioeconomy” where “computing tools and artificial intelligence” will help us “unlock the power of biological data”, scale up production, and reduce “obstacles for commercialization” (Biden, 2022).

In March 2022 at the World Government Summit, Elon Musk, a self-identified transhumanist, and the world’s wealthiest individual, spoke bluntly from the podium. He announced that he sees the upcoming AI apocalypse as a human-extinction event. What is the solution? “We must all become cyborgs if we are to survive the inevitable robot uprising.” This may be marketing, since Musk’s Neuralink is poised to start human trials of brain implantable chips” (Neate, 2022). Radically enhanced human cognition should, Musk predicts, counterbalance the dangers posed by super-intelligent machines. If the richest man on earth prophesied a mass AI extermination event and an inevitable posthuman future from the platform of the World Government Summit, should we dismiss it as just another tech business strategy?

In her analysis of the 4IR, Birgit Mahnkopf (2019:2) writes that a “system of physical-to-digital technologies embodied in machines and equipment…would enable sensing, monitoring, and control of the entire economy.” This is occurring against a backdrop of increasing global inequality and centralisation of wealth. It is estimated that eight men own as much as half the monetary wealth of the other eight billion humans (The New York Times, 2017). Schwab and other elites understand the social and political implications of their technological ideology and the rules of the ‘winner-takes-all’ market economy that will continue to consolidate gains from disruptive technologies. Universal basic income and social credit systems (with a resource-based economy and central bank digital currencies, or CBDCs) are presented as solutions to managing popular resistance and social unrest.

The WEF represents the fusion of transhumanist goals within global governance. As Schwab notes, the organisation has been very effective at ‘penetrating the cabinets’ of national governments. As Harvard scholar Kasper Schiølin (2020:549) astutely observes, the “4IR is justified as kings and emperors once justified their authority as divine and natural in uncertain times.” Hence, it may be that the potential problems from transhumanist ideologies come, not so much from the prospect of an AI take-over, but from the elites’ use of the culture and technologies of transhumanism. It may be that these risks overwhelm liberal democracies long before sentient AI does.

The Discontents

Few intellectuals note the opposition to transhumanism better than the transhumanists themselves. Nick Bostrom writes that resistance comes from:

“Ancient notions of taboo; the Greek concept of hubris; the Romanticist view of nature; certain religious interpretations of the concept of human dignity and of a God-given natural order; Karl Marx’s analysis of technology under capitalism; various Continental philosophers’ critique of technology, technocracy, and the rationalistic mindset that accompanies modern technoscience; foes to the military industrial complex and multinational corporation; and objectors to the consumerist rat-race.”BOSTROM, 2005:18

Bostrom’s summary is a panorama of human expression, literature, thousands of years of culture, religion, philosophy and human meaning-making. Modern literature on philosophy, culture and technology, from Jacques Ellul, Jerry Mander, Neil Postman and Wendell Berry to Jürgan Habermas and Martin Heidegger, offer poignant critiques that are relevant to opposing transhumanist visions of the future, and remind us of the value of community, embodied wisdom, and traditions, and the effects of technological systems. The difference in writing styles is noteworthy: while pro-transhumanist writing tends to be utilitarian and have a tone of scientific authority, ‘bioconservatives’ will often use narrative, symbols, and a writing style considered traditionally beautiful in human culture.

What is noticeable is that the opposition to transhumanism is broad, ill-defined and diverse. Nick Bostrom notes that “right-wing conservatives, left wing environmentalists and anti-globalists” are all pushing back against central transhumanist aims (Bostrom, 2005: 18). Firstly, there are the well-published intellectual and academic opponents that engage in a forceful scholarly debate with transhumanism over issues such as biotechnology, threats to liberal democracy, and scientific materialism (Leon Kass, 2000 and Francis Fukyama, 2003), and the environmental and social costs of transhumanism (Bill McKibbin, 2019). Also noteworthy are the bioethicists, George Annas, Lori Andrews and Rosario Isasi, who have advised making “inheritable genetic modification in humans a ‘crime against humanity’” (Annas, et al., 2002: 154-155). These scholars fear the posthuman potential for inequality and war, warning that, “the new species, or ‘posthuman’, will likely view the old ‘normal’ humans as inferior, even savages, and fit for slavery or slaughter…it is the predictable potential for genocide” (Annas, et al., 2002: 162). The common factor amongst these academics is that they believe biological engineering (of humans) would be disruptive to values, rights, and equality, and would threaten liberal democracy itself. These men have been labelled bio-conservatives or, more dismissively, Neo-Luddites, for rejecting the legitimacy of a posthuman future (Agar, 2007:12).

The second group that is emerging as anti-transhumanist are the environmentalists, non-conformists, primitivists, and anarchists committed to Wild Nature with forceful anti-industrial sentiments. In North America, this includes elements of the Deep Green Movement (Bilek, 2021), represented by various writers, artists, activists, ecologists, organic farmers, herbalists and healers, forest-dwellers and hunter/gatherers, spiritualists, and various alternative people, off-grid or nomadic, who refuse to live within a mechanised, industrial system, and may intentionally attempt to sabotage it. As an eclectic group, they have significant influence over specific geographical areas, tend to identify with traditional local indigenous values, and deeply resent Western consumerist culture, war, global corporations, pollution, and industrial infrastructure (Tsolkas, 2015). Notably, some ecofeminists have written that biotechnology is a dangerous “extension of traditional patriarchal exploitation of women” in promoting the reshaping of natural human bodies (Bostrom, 2005: 18).

The third group that has rapidly developed increasing opposition to transhumanism is religious groups. Besides the Mennonite and Amish communities, who maintain ‘old world’ lifestyles across significant sections of the United States, there is a rising anti-transhumanist sentiment and increasing religious fervour amongst some Evangelical Christians across North America. The New York Times reported on the increasing politicisation of evangelical congregations, with defiant unifying songs that repeated, “We will not comply” in the chorus (Dias and Graham, 2022). The language these groups use to describe transhumanism is often symbolic, archetypal and apocalyptic, and understood as an epic battle between light and darkness. For example, speaker and writer, Thomas Horn, has been preaching about the dangers of transhumanism to Christian congregations for over a decade. His books have titles such as Pandemonium’s Engine: How the End of the Church Age, the Rise of Transhumanism, and the Coming of the Ubermensch (Overman) Herald Satan’s Imminent and Final Assault on the Creation of God. Suspicions of ‘Satanic technology’, and anti-transhumanist sentiments may have been a part of the reason why Evangelical Christians were the demographic most unlikely to cooperate with Covid vaccination mandates in the United States (Lovett, 2021; Porter, 2021).

The tragic situation in Ukraine suggests that ideologically-driven wars may increase with the growing animosity between religious and transhumanist world views, or this may be used in war propaganda. The Russian Orthodox Church, with well over one hundred million members, considers the invasion of Ukraine as a battle of light and darkness, with ‘Holy Russia’ fighting against an unholy NATO alliance (Klip and Pankhurst, 2022). The Church Patriarch, Kirill of Moscow, has taken a strong position against biotechnology—including “gene therapy”, “cloning” and “artificial life extension”—and views the Russian Orthodox Church as defending the traditional family against the liberalism of the West (Stepanova, 2022: 8). Addressing the leaders of Russia at the recent 24^th World Russian People’s Council, the orthodox believer and philosopher Alexander Dugin proclaimed, “this war is not only a war of armies, of men…it is a war of Heaven against Hell…the Archangel Michael against the devil…the enemy came to us…in the face of LGBT, Transhumanism—that openly Satanic, anti-human civilization with which we are at war with today.” It may be that an influential number of religious Russians believe that they are not fighting against Ukraine at all, but rather rescuing it from the Satanic hold of the Transhumanist West (Siewers, 2020).

The fourth major group that is exhibiting overwhelming anti-establishment sentiments towards what is perceived as the ‘elites’ and their ‘transhumanist agenda’ are the politically and economically disenfranchised working classes and displaced farmers. Known in academic circles as ‘populists’ (Mazarella, 2019: 50), this group has recently displayed significant anger over extended ‘lockdowns’; losing the freedom to travel and to access decent healthcare (in the US); and experiencing unemployment and poverty. Their physically non-compliant behaviour, seen in mass demonstrations, notably across Europe and with the Canadian truckers, has been met with discursive and physical violence from increasingly irritated political leaders and media corporations. These ‘populists’ often reject transhumanism as an elitist ideology that they fear will lead to further loss of bodily autonomy, increased surveillance, political disempowerment, and a reduction of dignified employment to robots and automation (Mazarella, 2019: 130-134). These fears are not altogether unfounded since, according to the WEF, the 4IR is proposed to lead to significant worldwide job losses, perhaps up to 70% (Mahnkopf, 2019: 7). Steven Bannon, the instrumental ‘populist’ of Trump’s 2016 election force, uses religious polemics to rally resistance against what he sees as a rising transhuman globalist agenda. His popular show, the War Room, features broadcasts such as Descent into Hell: Transhumansim and the New Human Race. The outrage this group has towards 4IR transformations and transhumanism cannot be underestimated: within the US many working class families, though not all, also hold values of egalitarian weapons ownership, and their discourse exudes a willingness to engage in violent confrontation over threats to bodily autonomy (Sturm and Albretch, 2021: 130).

The United States’ most infamous anti-transhumanist/anti-technologist came, not from religious circles, but from within the radical environmental movement and academia. Theodore Kazcynski, a mathematical genius and professor at UC Berkeley, conducted an anti-technology terrorist campaign that spanned 17 years, killing three people and injuring 23 (Fleming, 2022). He blackmailed the FBI into publishing his 35,000-word thesis titled Industrial Society and its Future in the Washington Post and New York Times, which led to his capture. Since spending 25 years in solitary confinement, he has published volumes about how to conduct a revolution against the scientific elite. In one volume, The Anti-Tech Revolution: Why and How, he writes,

“The techies themselves insist that machines will soon surpass human intelligence and natural selection will favour systems that eliminate them (humans)—if not abruptly, then in a series of stages so that the risk of rebellion will be eliminated.”KAZCYNSKI, 2016: 79

Kazcynski reacted with terrorism to what he considered an existential threat posed by technology to humans and his greatest love, Wild Nature. His fear was a loss of freedom and masculine human nature, as well as the transformation of society into a controlled Brave New World, something he viewed as inevitable without a revolution (Moen, 2019: 3). In fact, it is arguable that the United States was already too similar to the Brave New World for Kazcynski, since he depicts “fighting industrial society” as “structurally similar to escaping a concentration camp” (Moen, 2019: 3).

Bill Joy, founder of Sun Technologies, authored an influential essay at the dawn of the 21^st century, Why the Future Doesn’t Need Us, advocating for the relinquishment of developing “AI, nanotechnology and genetics because of the risks” (Joy, 2000). Interestingly, Joy argues for the legitimacy of Kazcynski’s logic about the threats of advanced technologies, despite Kazcynski having “gravely injured” one of his friends, a computer scientist, with a bomb. Parts of Kazcynski’s writing that shifted Joy’s views included the following:

“The human race might easily permit itself to drift into a position of such dependence on machines that it would have no practical choice but to accept all of the machines’ decisions. As society and problems that face it become more and more complex and machines become more and more intelligent, people will let machines make more of their decisions for them…eventually a stage may be reached in which the decisions necessary to keep the system running will be so complex that human beings will be incapable of making them intelligently. At that stage, the machines will effectively be in control. People won’t be able to just turn the machines off, because they will be so dependent on them that turning them off would amount to suicide.”JOY, 2000: 48-49

This scenario is not too hard to imagine since it is quickly becoming our modern predicament. There is an implicit and explicit consensus in much transhumanist and anti-transhumanist thought, by Musk, Kazcynski, Joy and many others, that this phenomenon is leading, and will continue, to this logical end. The other scenario that Bill Joy quoted in his essay, again from Kazcynski, was:

“On the other hand, it is possible that human control over machines may be retained. In that case the average man may have control over certain private machines of his own…but control over large systems of machines will be in the hands of a tiny elite—just as it is today, but with two differences. Due to improved techniques the elite will have greater control over the masses; and because human work will no longer be necessary the masses will be ‘superfluous’, a useless burden on the system. If the elite is ruthless they may simply decide to exterminate the mass of humanity. Or if they are humane they may use propaganda or other psychological or biological techniques to reduce the birth rate until the mass of humanity becomes extinct, leaving the world to the elites.”JOY, 2000: 48-49

Interestingly, the scenarios do not seem mutually exclusive, at least for a time.

Scholar Ole Martin Moen has noted similarities between Kazycinski, Nick Bostrom and Julian Savulescu in their projections of a future crisis (Moen, 2018: 5). Like Kazcinski, Bostrom has argued that transhumanist technologies expose humanity to a significant risk of eradication (Bostrom, 2019). Savulescu, also like Kazcyinski, argues in Unfit for the Future: The need for moral enhancement, that evolved human nature combined with transhumanist technologies will lead to catastrophic consequences (Persson and Savulescu, 2012). Kazcinski, who believed these outcomes were logical, reacted with violence because his highest ethic was one of authentic, uncontrolled freedom (Moen, 2018:5-6). His life is a warning that some human natures may be entirely incompatible with a techno-scientific future. In fact, the transhumanist vision of human extinction and a ‘posthuman’ future may actually promote anxiety and violence in some humans.

Conclusion

Martin Heidegger has warned that those who seek to use technology’s influence without realising the immense power that the technology has over them, are trapped into becoming extensions of machines rather than free actors. They are “framed like men with advanced computational devices into seeing all of reality as computational information” (Doede, 2009:49). For thousands of years, human existence and meaning-making has accumulated from “birth and death, flood and fire, sleep and waking, the motions of the winds, the cycles of the stars, the budding and falling of the leaves, the ebbing and flowing of the tides” (Powys, 1930: 73), and it seems fitting to question if our highly evolved human tissues and ‘natures’ are strengthened or undermined by advanced technology. Is it possible that human flourishing is encouraged by the ancient struggle with the limitations of our own animal natures, rather than by conforming to the constructs of complex technology? With transhumanism, who is in control and who benefits?

It may be fair to say that transhumanism is a bio-social engineering project that ultimately concentrates power in machines, and humans who behave with machine-like characteristics. Large sections of the earth’s population, such as various religious groups, the working class, indigenous peoples, and other nature-based humans, may resent undemocratic announcements from forums like the WEF that, with the 4IR, industrialization is accelerating towards genetic engineering, robotic automation and virtual living. Furthermore, we may risk promoting an existential crisis and extreme reactions in those who dislike being told that the future belongs to the posthuman rather than to themselves and their offspring. It is a contested future and one that is entirely unwritten.

References

Agar, N. (2007). Whereto transhumanism?: the literature reaches a critical mass. The Hastings Center Report, 37(3), 12-17.
Akhtar, R. (2022). Protests, neoliberalism and right-wing populism amongst farmers in India. The Journal of Peasant Studies, 1-21.
Annas, G. J., Andrews, L. B., & Isasi, R. M. (2002). Protecting the endangered human: toward an international treaty prohibiting cloning and inheritable alterations. American Journal of Law & Medicine, 28(2-3), 151-178.
Baumann, F. (2010). Humanism and transhumanism. The New Atlantis, 68-84.
BBC (2016) Yuval Noah Harari: “We are probably one of the last generations of Homo sapiens.” Available: https://www.bbc.com/news/av/uk-37171171
Bilek, J. (2021). The Gender Identity Industry, Transhumanism and Posthumanism. Deep Green Resistance News Service. Available: https://dgrnewsservice.org/resistance-culture/radical-feminism/the-gender-identity-industry-transhumanism-and-posthumanism/
Bohan, E. (2019). A history of transhumanism. Doctoral dissertation, Ph.D. thesis submitted for examination November 2018. Macquarie University.
Bostrom, N. (2005). A history of transhumanist thought. Journal of Evolution and Technology, 14(1).
Bostrom, N. (2005). Transhumanist values. Journal of Philosophical Research, 30 (Supplement), 3-14.
Bostrom, N. (2019). The vulnerable world hypothesis. Global Policy, 10(4), 455-476.
Broudy, D., & Arakaki, M. (2020). Who wants to be a slave? The technocratic convergence of humans and data. Frontiers in Communication, 37.
Byk, C. (2021). Transhumanism: from Julian Huxley to UNESCO. Jahr: Europski časopis za bioetiku, 12(1), 141-162.
Carr, N. (2020). The shallows: What the Internet is doing to our brains. WW Norton & Company.
Céline, L. (2014). Le corps-marché. La marchandisation de la vie humaine à l’ère de la bioéconomie.
Conger, K., & Metz, C. (2020). ‘I Could Solve Most of Your Problems’: Eric Schmidt’s Pentagon Offensive. New York Times. Available: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/02/technology/eric-schmidt-pentagon-google.html
DeFranco, J., DiEuliis, D., & Giordano, J. (2019). Redefining neuroweapons. Prism, 8(3), 48-63.
Desai, S. (2021). Misinformation is about to get so much worse. The Atlantic. Available: https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2021/09/eric-schmidt-artificial-intelligence-misinformation/620218/
deGrey, A., Bauman, W. A., Cannon, L., Checketts, L., Cole-Turner, R., Deane-Drummond, C., et al. (2022). Religious transhumanism and its critics. Rowman & Littlefield.
Dias, E., & Graham, R. (2022). The growing religious fervor in the American right: ‘This is a Jesus movement’. The New York Times. Available: https://www.nytimes.com/2022/04/06/us/christian-right-wing-politics.html
Doede, B. (2009). Transhumanism, technology, and the future: Posthumanity emerging or sub-humanity descending?. Appraisal, 7(3).
Fleming, S. (2022). The Unabomber and the origins of anti-tech radicalism. Journal of Political Ideologies, 27(2), 207-225.
Fukuyama, F. (2003). Our posthuman future: Consequences of the biotechnology revolution. Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
Fukuyama, F. (2004). Transhumanism. Foreign policy, (144), 42-43.
Gibney, E. (2015). Injectable brain implant spies on individual neurons. Nature, 522(7555), 137-138.
Giesen, K. G. (2018). Transhumanism as the Dominant Ideology of the Fourth Industrial Revolution. Journal international de bioethique et d’ethique des sciences, (3), 189-203.
Hubback, D. (1989). Julian Huxley and eugenics. In Evolutionary Studies (pp. 194-206). Palgrave Macmillan, London.
Hughes, J. J. (2012). The politics of transhumanism and the techno‐millennial imagination, 1626–2030. Zygon®, 47(4), 757-776.
Huxley, A. (1960). Brave new world and brave new world revisited. Harper & Row, Publisher, Inc.
Huxley, J. (1933). What I Dare Think. Chatto & Windus.
Huxley, J. (1957). Religion Without Revelation.(New and Revised Edition.). Max Parrish.
Huxley, J. (2015). Transhumanism. Ethics in Progress, 6(1), 12-16.
Joy, B. (2000). Why the future doesn’t need us (Vol. 8, No. 4, pp. 47-75). San Francisco, CA: Wired.
Kaczynski, T. J. (2016). Anti-tech Revolution: Why and how. Fitch & Madison Publishers.
Karpukhin, S. (2017) Putin: Leader in artificial intelligence will rule the world. CNBC. Available: https://www.cnbc.com/2017/09/04/putin-leader-in-artificial-intelligence-will-rule-world.html
Kass, L. R. (2000). Triumph or tragedy? The moral meaning of genetic technology. The American Journal of Jurisprudence, 45(1), 1-16.
Kass, L. R., & Kass, R. (2002). Human cloning and human dignity: the report of the president’s Council on Bioethics. Public Affairs.
Kardaras, N. (2016). Glow kids: How screen addiction is hijacking our kids—and how to break the trance. St. Martin’s Press.
Kilp, A., & Pankhurst, J. G. (2022). Soft, Sharp, and Evil Power: The Russian Orthodox Church in the Russian Invasion of Ukraine. Occasional Papers on Religion in Eastern Europe, 42(5), 2.
Kissinger, H. A., Schmidt, E., & Huttenlocher, D. (2021). The age of AI: and our human future. Hachette UK.
Krishnan, A. (2016). Military neuroscience and the coming age of neurowarfare. Taylor & Francis.
Kurzweil, Ray. (2005). The Singularity is Near. Penguin Books Ltd.
Levin, S. B. (2018). Creating a Higher Breed: Transhumanism and the Prophecy of Anglo-American Eugenics. In Reproductive Ethics II (pp. 37-58). Springer, Cham.
Levin, S. B. (2020). Posthuman Bliss?: The Failed Promise of Transhumanism. Oxford University Press.
Levy, N. (2013). There may be costs to failing to enhance, as well as to enhancing. The American Journal of Bioethics, 13(7), 38-39.
Lovett, I. (2021). White Evangelicals Resist COVID-19 Vaccine Most among Religious Groups. The Wall Street Journal. Available: https://www. wsj. com/articles/white-evangelicals-resist-COVID-19-vaccine-most-among-religious-groups-11627464, 601.
Mahnkopf, B. (2019). The ‘4th wave of industrial revolution’—a promise blind to social consequences, power and ecological impact in the era of ‘digital capitalism’. EuroMemo Group.
Mayor, S. (2018). Transhumanism: five minutes with… Mark O’Connell. British Medical Journal. (361:k2327).
Mazocco, R. (2019). Transhumanism—Engineering the Human Condition. Springer Praxis Books.
Mazzarella, W. (2019). The anthropology of populism: beyond the liberal settlement. Annual Review of Anthropology, 48(1), 45-60.
McKibben, B. (2019). Falter. Black Inc..
McNamee, M. J., & Edwards, S. D. (2006). Transhumanism, medical technology and slippery slopes. Journal of Medical Ethics, 32(9), 513-518.
Moen, O. M. (2018). The Unabomber’s ethics. Bioethics, 33(2), 223-229.
More, M. (2010). The overhuman in the transhuman. Journal of Evolution and Technology, 21(1), 1-4.
Neate, R. (2022) Elon Musk’s brain chip firm Neuralink lines up clinical trials in humans. The Guardian. Available: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2022/jan/20/elon-musk-brain-chip-firm-neuralink-lines-up-clinical-trials-in-humans
Northcott, M. S. (2022). God and Gaia: Science, Religion and Ethics on a Living Planet. Taylor & Francis.
O’Gieblyn, M. (2017) God in the Machine: My strange journey into transhumanism. The Guardian. Available: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/apr/18/god-in-the-machine-my-strange-journey-into-transhumanism
Persson, I., & Savulescu, J. (2012). Unfit for the future: The need for moral enhancement. OUP Oxford.
Persson, I., & Savulescu, J. (2008). The perils of cognitive enhancement and the urgent imperative to enhance the moral character of humanity. Journal of Applied Philosophy, 25(3), 162-177.
Philbeck, T., & Davis, N. (2018). The fourth industrial revolution. Journal of International Affairs, 72(1), 17-22.
Philanthropy News Digest (2019). Schmidts Commit $1 Billion to Develop Talent for the Public Good. Available: https://philanthropynewsdigest.org/news/schmidts-commit-1-billion-to-develop-talent-for-the-public-good
Porter, T. (2021) How the evangelical Christian right seeded the false, yet surprisingly resilient, theory that vaccines contain microchips. Business Insider. Available: https://www.businessinsider.com/how-evangelical-right-pushed-microchip-vaccine-conspiracy-theory-2021-9
Powys, J.C. (1930). The Meaning of Culture. Jonathan Cape.
Roco, M. C., & Bainbridge, W. S. (2002). Converging technologies for improving human performance: Integrating from the nanoscale. Journal of Nanoparticle Research, 4(4), 281-295.
Schmeink, L. (2016). Dystopia, Science Fiction, Posthumanism, and Liquid Modernity. Biopunk Dystopias. Genetic Engineering, Society and Science Fiction. Liverpool: Liverpool University Press, 18-70.
Schiølin, K. (2020). Revolutionary dreams: Future essentialism and the sociotechnical imaginary of the fourth industrial revolution in Denmark. Social Studies of Science, 50(4), 542-566.
Shead, S. (2021) U.S. is ‘not prepared to defend or compete in the A.I. era,’ says expert group chaired by Eric Schmidt. CNBC. Available: https://www.cnbc.com/2021/03/02/us-not-prepared-to-defend-or-compete-in-ai-era-says-eric-schmidt-group.html
Schwab, K. (2017). The fourth industrial revolution. Currency.
Siewers, A. K. (2020). Totalitarian transhumanism versus Christian theosis: From Russian Orthodoxy with love. Christian Bioethics: Non-Ecumenical Studies in Medical Morality, 26(3), 325-344.
Silver, A. (2022). What Charles Lieber’s conviction means for science. Nature, 601(7894), 493-494.
Sluga, G. (2010). UNESCO and the (one) world of Julian Huxley. Journal of World History, 393-418.
Stepanova, E. A. (2022). “Everything good against everything bad”: traditional values in the search for new Russian national idea. Zeitschrift für Religion, Gesellschaft und Politik, 1-22.
Sturm, T., & Albrecht, T. (2021). Constituent Covid-19 apocalypses: contagious conspiracism, 5G, and viral vaccinations. Anthropology & Medicine, 28(1), 122-139.
The New York Times (2017) World’s 8 Richest Men have as much Wealth as Bottom Half, Oxfam says. The New York Times. Available: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/16/world/eight-richest-wealth-oxfam.html
Tirosh‐Samuelson, H. (2012). Transhumanism as a secularist faith. Zygon®, 47(4), 710-734.
Tolstoy, A., & McCaffray, E. (2015). Mind games: Alexander Dugin and Russia’s war of ideas. World Affairs, 25-30.
Trauth-Goik, A. (2021). Repudiating the fourth industrial revolution discourse: a new episteme of technological progress. World Futures, 77(1), 55-78.
Tsolkas, P. (2015). No system but the ecosystem: Earth first! and Anarchism. Available: https://anarchiststudies.org/no-system-but-the-ecosystem-earth-first-and-anarchism-by-panagioti-tsolkas-1/.
Vicente, P. N., & Dias-Trindade, S. (2021). Reframing sociotechnical imaginaries: The case of the Fourth Industrial Revolution. Public Understanding of Science, 30(6), 708-723.
Weindling, P. (2012). Julian Huxley and the continuity of eugenics in twentieth-century Britain. Journal of Modern European History, 10(4), 480-499.
Wells, H. G. (1940). The New World Order—Whether it is Attainable, How it can be Attained, and What Sort of World a World at Peace Will Have to Be. London: Seeker and Warburg.

Unraveling the Epstein-Chomsky Relationship

Posted on May 26, 2023 by Reid Mukai

Recent revelations that the renowned linguist and political activist met with Jeffrey Epstein several times have surprised and confused many. Why was Epstein interested in meeting with Noam Chomsky? And why did Chomsky agree to meet him despite his past? The answer may surprise you.

By Whitney Webb

Source: Unlimited Hangout

On Sunday, the Wall Street Journal published a report detailing information contained within a “trove” of previously unreported documents of the deceased sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein. Those documents, which have not been publicly released and appear to have been passed solely to the Journal, included Epstein’s private calendar and meeting schedules. The documents, per the Journal, contain “thousands of pages of emails and schedules from 2013 to 2017” and – as the report notes – detail Epstein’s dealings with several prominent individuals whose names were not on his flight logs or his infamous “little black book” of contacts. One of these individuals is the renowned linguist, political commentator and critic of capitalism and empire, Noam Chomsky.

Chomsky, who has previously discussed the Epstein case in interviews and who has maintained that Epstein’s ties to intelligence agencies should be considered a “conspiracy theory,” had not previously disclosed these meetings. Chomsky, when confronted by Journal reporters, was evasive, but ultimately admitted to meeting and knowing Jeffrey Epstein.

Many, largely on the left, have expressed dismay and confusion as to why someone with the political views of Chomsky would willingly meet, not once but several times, with someone like Jeffrey Epstein, particularly well after Epstein’s notoriety as a sex trafficker and pedophile. As this report will show, Epstein appeared to view Chomsky as another intellectual who could help guide his decisions when it came to his scientific obsessions – namely, transhumanism and eugenics. What Chomsky gained in return from meeting with Epstein isn’t as clear.

Why Did Chomsky Meet with Epstein?

According to the Journal, Chomsky’s meetings with Epstein took place during the years 2015 and 2016, while Chomsky taught at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, or MIT. Chomsky told the Journal that he met with Epstein to discuss topics like neuroscience with other academics, like Harvard’s Martin Nowak (who was heavily funded by Epstein). On a separate occasion, Chomsky again met with Epstein alongside former Israeli Prime Minister, Ehud Barak, allegedly to discuss “Israel’s policies with regard to Palestinian issues and the international arena.” A separate date saw Chomsky and his wife invited by Epstein to have dinner with him, Woody Allen and Allen’s wife Soon-Yi Previn. When asked about the dinner date with Woody Allen and Epstein, Chomsky referred to the occasion as “an evening spent with a great artist.”

When confronted with this evidence, Chomsky initially told the Journal that his meetings and relationship with Epstein were “none of your business. Or anyone’s.” He then added that “I knew him [Epstein] and we met occasionally.”

Before continuing further, it is important to note that aside from Epstein, both Ehud Barak and Woody Allen have been accused of having inappropriate sexual relationships with minors. For instance, Barak was a frequent visitor to Epstein’s residences in New York, so often that The Daily Beast reported that numerous residents of an apartment building linked to Epstein “had seen Barak in the building multiple times over the last few years, and nearly half a dozen more described running into his security detail,” adding that “the building is majority-owned by Epstein’s younger brother, Mark, and has been tied to the financier’s alleged New York trafficking ring.”

Specifically, several apartments in the building were “being used to house underage girls from South America, Europe and the former Soviet Union,” according to a former bookkeeper employed by one of Epstein’s main procurers of underage girls, Jean Luc Brunel. Barak is also known to have spent the night at one of Epstein’s residences at least once, was photographed leaving Epstein’s residence as recently as 2016, and has admitted to visiting Epstein’s island, which has sported nicknames including “Pedo Island,” “Lolita Island” and “Orgy Island.” In 2004, Barak received $2.5 million from Leslie Wexner’s Wexner Foundation, where Epstein was a trustee as well as one of the foundation’s top donors, officially for unspecified “consulting services” and “research” on the foundation’s behalf. Several years later, Barak put Harvey Weinstein in contact with the Israeli private intelligence outfit Black Cube, which employs former Mossad agents and Israeli military intelligence operatives, as Weinstein sought to intimidate the women who had accused him of sexual assault and sexual harassment.

In addition, Barak previously chaired and invested in Carbyne911, a controversial Israeli emergency services start-up that has expanded around the world and has become particularly entrenched in the United States. Barak had directed Epstein to invest $1 million into that company, which has been criticized as a potential tool for warrantless mass surveillance. Leslie Wexner also invested millions in the company.

In Woody Allen’s case, he has been accused of sexually assaulting his adopted daughter Dylan Farrow when she was 7 years old. That abuse claim has been corroborated by witnesses and other evidence. Furthermore, Allen refused to take a polygraph administered by state police in connection with the investigation and lost four exhaustive court battles related to child custody and his abuse of Dylan Farrow. One of the judge’s in the case described Allen’s behavior towards Dylan as “grossly inappropriate and that measures must be taken to protect her.” Actress Mia Farrow, Dylan’s mother, alleged in court that Allen took a sexual interest in her adopted daughter when she was between the ages of two and three years old.

Allen subsequently “seduced” and later married another adopted daughter of Farrow’s, Soon-Yi Previn, whom Allen first met when Previn was a child. However, Previn has stated that her first “friendly” interaction with Allen took place when she was a teenager. In 1992, Mia Farrow found nude photos of Previn in Allen’s home and has stated that this was her motive for ending her relationship with Allen.

In the case of Allen and Epstein, and potentially Barak as well, their sexual proclivities and scandals were well known by the time Chomsky met with these men, making a strong suggestion that this type of behavior was not seen by Chomsky as taboo or as a barrier to socialization. It is more likely than not that there was some other major draw that led Chomsky to overlook this type of horrendous behavior toward vulnerable minors.

In terms of reaching a deeper understanding about why Epstein would have been interested in Chomsky – and vice versa, it is important to review – not just the information recently reported by the Wall Street Journal, but also what Epstein himself said of Chomsky before his 2019 death. According to an interview conducted in 2017, but later published in 2019 when Epstein was a major news topic, Epstein openly stated that he had invited Chomsky to his townhouse and he also explicitly stated why he had done so. Oddly, this early acknowledgement of Epstein’s regarding his relationship with Chomsky was left out of the Journal’s recent report.

In that interview, which was conducted by Jeffrey Mervis and later published in Science, Epstein stated that following about Chomsky:

[…] Epstein readily admitted to asking prominent members of the scientific establishment to assess the potential contribution of these so-called outcasts [i.e. MIT students Epstein described as being “on the spectrum”].

“So, I had Jim Watson to the house, and I asked Watson, what does he think about this idea,” a proposal to study how the cellular mechanisms of plants might be relevant to human cancer. Watson is a Nobel laureate and co-discoverer of the structure of DNA. “Likewise with [Noam] Chomsky on artificial intelligence,” he said, referring to one of the pioneers in the field.

In fact, Epstein expressed great respect for the opinions of these elder statesmen. “It’s funny to watch Noam Chomsky rip apart these young boys who talk about having a thinking machine,” Epstein noted. “He takes out a dagger and slices them, very kindly, into little shreds.”

Thus, per Epstein, his interest in inviting Chomsky to his house was explicitly related to the “artificial intelligence,” which was a major scientific interest of Epstein’s. This also provides a major clue as to how Chomsky and Epstein might have first been introduced.

Chomsky, Epstein and MIT

Chomsky is most widely viewed as a famous linguist, political commentator and critic of modern capitalism and imperialism. So, why did Epstein seek to meet with him instead on Artificial Intelligence matters?

Well, an admitted “friend” of both Chomsky’s and Epstein’s was the AI pioneer Marvin Minsky. Like Chomsky, Minsky was a long-time professor and academic at MIT. It is very possible that Minsky connected the two men, especially considering the fact that Epstein was a major donor to MIT. Epstein described himself as being “very close” to Minsky, who died in 2016, roughly a year after Epstein began meeting with Chomsky. Epstein also financed some of Minsky’s projects and Minsky, like Ehud Barak, was accused of sexually abusing the minors Epstein trafficked.

Chomsky’s views on linguistics and cognition, for those who don’t know, is based very much on evolutionary biology. Chomsky was also a pioneer in cognitive science, described as “a field aimed at uncovering the mental representations and rules that underlie our perceptual and cognitive abilities.” Some have described Chomsky’s concept of language as based on “the complexity of internal representation, encoded in the genome, and their maturation in light of the right data into a sophisticated computational system, one that cannot be usefully broken down into a set of associations.” A person’s “language faculty”, per Chomsky, should be seen as “part of the organism’s genetic endowment, much like the visual system, the immune system and the circulatory system, and we ought to approach it just as we approach these other more down-to-earth biological systems.”

Despite their friendship, Minsky greatly diverged with Chomsky in this view, with Minsky describing Chomsky’s views on linguistics and cognition as largely superficial and irrelevant. Chomsky later criticized the widely used approach with AI that focuses on statistical learning techniques to mine and predict data, which Chomsky argued was “unlikely to yield general principles about the nature of intelligent beings or about cognition.”

However, Chomsky’s views linking evolutionary biology/genetics with linguistics/cognition were notably praised by the aforementioned Martin Nowak, who had attended one of the meetings Epstein had with Chomsky. Nowak, a professor of biology and mathematics and head of the Program for Evolutionary Dynamics at Harvard, later stated that he had “once broke out a blackboard during dinner with Epstein and, for two hours, gave a mathematical description of how language works,” further revealing that Epstein was interested in aspects of linguistics. It is unclear if this particular meeting was the same that Chomsky had attended alongside Nowak to discuss “neuroscience” and other topics.

However, given the importance of evolutionary biology and genetics to Chomsky’s theories, it is hardly surprising that Jeffrey Epstein would have gravitated more towards his views on AI than those of Minsky. Epstein was fascinated by genetics and, even per mainstream sources, was also deeply interested eugenics. Take for example the following from an article published in The Guardian in 2019:

Epstein was apparently fixated on “transhumanism”, the belief that the human species can be deliberately advanced through technological breakthroughs, such as genetic engineering and artificial intelligence.

At its most benign, transhumanism is a belief that humanity’s problems can be improved, upgraded even, through such technology as cybernetics and artificial intelligence – at its most malignant though, transhumanism lines up uncomfortably well with eugenics.

Thus, Epstein’s interest in AI, genetics, and more was tied into his documented obsession with “transhumanism,” which – as several Unlimited Hangout reports have noted – is essentially a rebranding of eugenics. Indeed, the term transhumanism itself was first coined by Julian Huxley, the former president of the British Eugenics Society and the first head of UNESCO who called to make “the unthinkable thinkable again” with regards to eugenics.

Aside from transhumanism, Epstein also had an avowed interest in “strengthening” the human gene pool, in part by impregnating as many women as possible with his “seed” in order to widely disperse his genes. These views may also explain Epstein’s interest in associating himself with people like James (Jim) Watson. As noted earlier in this article, Epstein stated in 2017 that he had invited both Watson and Chomsky to his home on separate occasions.

Watson has been a controversial figures for years, particularly after he openly stated that people of African descent are genetically inferior and less intelligent than their European counterparts. He also previously promoted the idea that women should abort babies that carried a “gay gene,” were such a gene ever discovered. He also felt that gene editing should be used to make all women “prettier” and to eradicate “stupidity”. Notably, Watson made all of these comments well before Epstein invited him to his home.

Watson was also praised, controversially, after these same comments by another Epstein-funded scientist, Eric Lander. Lander, who was recently Biden’s top science advisor, was forced to resign from that post last year after being accused of harassing those who worked under him in the Biden administration’s Office of Science and Technology. Prior to joining the Biden administration, Lander had collaborated with Watson on the Human Genome Project and later ran the Broad Institute, a non-profit born out of collaboration between MIT and Harvard.

Returning to Chomsky, though he may not have been aware of Epstein’s interests in eugenics and transhumanism, it has since become clear that Epstein’s main interest in Artificial Intelligence – his stated purpose for courting Chomsky – was intimately tied to these controversial disciplines. However, Chomsky did know of Epstein’s past, and likely also knew of Woody Allen’s similar past before meeting him as well. He turned a blind eye on those matters, telling the Journal that Epstein had “served his sentence” and, as a result, had been granted a “clean slate”. In saying this, Chomsky is apparently unaware of Epstein’s controversial “sweetheart deal” that resulted in an extremely lenient sentence and non-prosecution agreement. That “deal” was signed off on by then-US Attorney Alex Acosta because Acosta was told to “back off” Epstein because Epstein “belonged to intelligence.” Chomsky had previously told several people, including an Unlimited Hangout reader, that an Epstein-intelligence agency connection is a “conspiracy theory.”

Given Chomsky’s odd views on Epstein’s past and the fact that Epstein frequently discussed transhumanism and eugenics around other prominent scientists, it is possible, though unproven, that Chomsky may have known more about Epstein’s true interests in AI and genetics.

Would Chomsky have been willing to overlook these ethical conundrums? Given his political views on capitalism and foreign policy, many would likely say that he would not. However, finding ways to circumvent these ethical conundrums with respect to AI may have been one of Epstein’s main reasons for heavily funding MIT, particularly its Media Lab. Epstein, in addition to his own donations, also funneled millions of dollars from Bill Gates and Leon Black to the Media Lab.

According to former Media Lab employee Rodrigo Ochigame, writing in The Intercept, Joi Ito of MIT’s Media Lab – who took lots of donations from Epstein and attempted to hide Epstein’s name on official records – was focused on developing “ethics” for AI that were “aligned strategically with a Silicon Valley effort seeking to avoid legally enforceable restrictions of controversial technologies.” Ito later resigned his post at the Media Lab due to fallout from the Epstein scandal.

Ochigame writes:

A key group behind this effort, with the lab as a member, made policy recommendations in California that contradicted the conclusions of research I conducted with several lab colleagues, research that led us to oppose the use of computer algorithms in deciding whether to jail people pending trial. Ito himself would eventually complain, in private meetings with financial and tech executives, that the group’s recommendations amounted to “whitewashing” a thorny ethical issue. “They water down stuff we try to say to prevent the use of algorithms that don’t seem to work well” in detention decisions, he confided to one billionaire.

I also watched MIT help the U.S. military brush aside the moral complexities of drone warfare, hosting a superficial talk on AI and ethics by Henry Kissinger, the former secretary of state and notorious war criminal, and giving input on the U.S. Department of Defense’s “AI Ethics Principles” for warfare, which embraced “permissibly biased” algorithms and which avoided using the word “fairness” because the Pentagon believes “that fights should not be fair.”

Ochigame also cites Media Lab colleagues who say that Marvin Minsky, who worked with the Lab before his death, was known to say that “an ethicist is someone who has a problem with whatever you have in your mind.” Also troubling is the fact that Ito, and by extension the Media Lab, played a role in shaping White House policy with respect to AI. For instance, Obama called Ito an “expert” on AI and ethics during an interview with him in 2016. Ito, on his conversation with Obama, said the following: “[…] the role of the Media Lab is to be a connective tissue between computer science, and the social sciences, and the lawyers, and the philosophers […] What’s cool is that President Obama gets that.”

If you are Jeffrey Epstein, with a history of illegal and criminal activity, and interested in avoiding the regulation of controversial technologies you feel are necessary to advance your vision of transhumanism/eugenics, financing groups that greatly influence “ethics” policies that helps limit the regulation of those technologies would obviously benefit you.

Ochigame goes on to write:

Thus, Silicon Valley’s vigorous promotion of “ethical AI” has constituted a strategic lobbying effort, one that has enrolled academia to legitimize itself. Ito played a key role in this corporate-academic fraternizing, meeting regularly with tech executives. The MIT-Harvard fund’s initial director was the former “global public policy lead” for AI at Google. Through the fund, Ito and his associates sponsored many projects, including the creation of a prominent conference on “Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency” in computer science; other sponsors of the conference included Google, Facebook, and Microsoft.

Notably, Epstein was tied into these same circles. He was very, very close, not just with Bill Gates, but with several other top Microsoft executives and was also known to have a close relationship with Google’s Sergey Brin, who has recently been subpoenaed in the Epstein-JPMorgan case, as well as Facebook/Meta’s Mark Zuckerberg. Notably, many of these same companies are currently pioneering transhumanist technologies, particularly in healthcare, and are deeply tied to either the military or intelligence, if not both.

The MIT-AI-Military Connection

Chomsky is just one of several prominent academics and intellectuals who were courted by Epstein in an attempt to supercharge the development of technologies that could help bring his controversial obsessions to fruition. Notably, many of these characters, including Chomsky, have had their work – at one point or another – funded by the U.S. military, which has itself long been a major driver of AI research.

For example, Minsky and Danny Hillis, a close associate of Epstein’s in his own right, co-created a DARPA contractor and supercomputer firm called Thinking Machines, which was aimed at creating a “truly intelligent machine. One that can see and hear and speak. A machine that will be proud of us,” according to one company brochure. Minsky was Hillis’ mentor at MIT and the pair sought out Sheryl Handler, who worked for a genetic-engineering start-up at Harvard called the Genetics Institute, to help them create their supercomputer firm.

Thinking Machines, which made poor business decisions routinely from the beginning, was only able to function for as long as it did due to multi-million dollar contracts it had secured from the Pentagon’s DARPA. With the close of Cold War, DARPA sought to use its clout with Thinking Machines to push the company to develop a product that could deal with things like modeling the global climate, mapping the human genome and predicting earthquakes. Subsequent reporting from the Wall Street Journal showed that the agency had been “playing favorites” and Thinking Machine’s “gravy train” abruptly ended due to the bad publicity, subsequently leading to the collapse of the company.

Hillis, around this time, met Jeffrey Epstein. The introduction may have been brokered by former Microsoft’s Chief Technology Officer Nathan Myhrvold, a friend of Hillis’ who grew close to Epstein in the 1990s and even took Epstein on an official Microsoft trip to Russia. Myhrvold, who was also named as an abuser of the minors Epstein trafficked, was one of the other top Microsoft officials who was close to Epstein beginning in the 1990s. Another was Linda Stone, who later connected Jeffrey Epstein to Joi Ito of MIT’s Media Lab. As previously mentioned, Epstein would later direct the long-time head of Microsoft, Bill Gates, to donate millions to the Media Lab.

Chomsky’s own history at MIT brought him into contact with the military. For instance, during the early 1960s, Chomsky received funding from the Air Force, which aimed to program a computer with Chomsky’s insights about grammar in an attempt to endow it “with the ability to recognize instructions imparted to it in perfectly ordinary English, thereby eliminating a necessity for highly specialized languages that intervene between a man and a computer.” Chomsky later stated of the military funding of his early career that “I was in a military lab. If you take a look at my early publications, they all say something about Air Force, Navy, and so on, because I was in a military lab, the Research Lab for Electronics.”

Chomsky has since denied that military funding shaped his linguistics work in any significant way and has claimed that the military is used by the government “as a kind of a funnel by which taxpayer money was being used to create the hi-tech economy of the future.” However, reports have noted that this particular project was very much tied to military applications. In addition, the man who first recruited Chomsky to MIT in the mid-1950s, Jerome Wiesner, went on to be Chomsky’s boss at MIT for over 20 years as well as “America’s most powerful military scientist.”

To Chomsky’s credit, after this program ended, he became fully, and publicly, committed to anti-war activism. This activism led him, at one point, to consider resigning from MIT, which he declined to do – likely because he was rather quickly granted professorship. As Chris Knight writes, “this meant that instead of resigning, Chomsky’s choice was to launch himself as an outspoken anti-militarist activist even while remaining in one of the US’s most prestigious military labs.”

By staying at MIT, Chomsky chose to maintain his career, in relative proximity to the centers of power he would later become an icon for denouncing. However, it shows that Chomsky, from this time onward, began to make some choices that undermined his radicalism to an extent. Chomsky may have rationalized his decision to stay at MIT in the 1960s because it gave him a better platform from which to espouse his political and anti-war views. It is not unheard of for prominent public figures to make such compromises. However, in light of the recent Epstein revelations and what they appear to signal, it seems that Chomsky, particularly in his later years, may have become too comfortable and too willing to make these types of compromises – ones that a much younger Chomsky would have surely rejected.

‘Policing the Elite’s Technocracy: How Do We Resist This Effectively?

Posted on April 19, 2023 by Reid Mukai

By Robert J. Burrowes

As has been carefully documented, under cover of the ‘virus’/‘vaccine’ narrative, the Global Elite is implementing long-planned and profound changes to 200 areas of human life.

In essence, as documented elsewhere – see ‘We Are Being Smashed Politically, Economically, Medically and Technologically by the Elite’s “Great Reset”: Why? How Do We Fight Back Effectively?’ – this program will kill off a substantial proportion of humanity, imprison those left alive as transhuman slaves in their ‘smart cities’ subject to their fourth industrial revolution technologies (including 5G, digital ID, CBDCs, geofencing, AI policing & a robotized workforce), enclose the Commons forever and transfer all wealth to Elite hands.

Needless to say, with some people already resisting and more people likely to perceive the truth of what is happening and join the resistance with the passage of time, policing the imposition of this program will be a critical factor in ensuring its success.

As indicated then, just one area in which profound change will take place is policing.

Future policing will be done by a smaller number of militarily-equipped police, transhuman police and technocratic police supported by corporate private security technology. In this article, I will briefly outline the key changes to policing, in these three distinct categories, and also explain why these changes must be resisted and how we can do this most effectively.

Fewer and Militarized Police

Reflecting a longer term trend, in 2019 the International Association of Chiefs of Police reported that ‘Law enforcement agencies across the United States are struggling to recruit and hire police officers.’ While police killings of innocent civilians – see ‘Mapping Police Violence’ and ‘Not just “a few bad apples”: U.S. police kill civilians at much higher rates than other countries’ – failed to rate a mention in the report, it did at least acknowledge ‘Scrutiny of the police, cellphone recordings of interactions between the police and public, media coverage, and popular entertainment portrayals of police have led many young people to view police differently than their parents may have.’ See ‘The State of Recruitment: A Crisis for Law Enforcement’.

In late 2021, two years into policing the pandemic, US police reported a substantially increased rate of retirement and resignation among police officers, with more than five times as many police leaving the New York Police Department in 2021 as left in 2020. According to the report: ‘In the wake of a spasmodic year of protests and pandemic, plus an aftermath of violent crime, the profession may be fast approaching a generational and possibly historic reckoning.’ See ‘Law enforcement faces unprecedented challenges in hiring and keeping recruits’.

On the other side of the world, where the Victoria Police had suffered an image-battering following their violent policing of protests against Covid-19 lockdown measures – see ‘Australia: Harsh Police Response During Covid-19’ – the situation was the same: ‘Victoria Police is facing a staffing crisis with an extra 1500 frontline officers needed, secret modelling has warned.’ See ‘Secret Report Reveals Victoria Police Facing a Staffing Crisis’.

Of course other police forces around the world suffered image batterings in response to their violent response to those protesting ‘pandemic’ lockdowns and other restrictions. See, for example, ‘Serbia: Violent police crackdown against COVID-19 lockdown protesters must stop’.

But on top of long-standing issues in relation to police numbers exacerbated by political direction of policing behaviour while enforcing ‘pandemic’ lockdown measures, it is clear that the number of serving police has been reduced throughout the past three years by using two additional mechanisms: In many places, forcing those who resisted the ‘kill shot’ to resign from service – see, for example, ‘Victoria Police facing exodus due to draconian Covid rules’ – and, everywhere, by killing off a proportion of the police who were mandated to take the shot (which will continue to have impact in the years ahead).

Apart from this, the damaged reputation police suffered as a result of their role in enforcing the Elite program against those people willing to nonviolently protest the violation of their constitutional and human rights, has meant that the conscience-based resignation rate of police has risen – see, for example, ‘Conscientious Resignation of Police Officer in Australia’ – while recruitment has suffered in many places.

Separately from this, other resignations and retirements have probably occurred following official interference to thwart conscientious police officers asked or attempting to investigate deaths from Covid-19 injections – see one initiative by New Zealand doctors to have the issue investigated (‘Deaths Following C-19 Vaccination’) which ran into government obstruction (‘Jacinda Ardern Left Reeling As New Zealand Police Look at Investigating COVID Jab Deaths’) and a Canadian officer punished for conducting an investigation (‘Ottawa police officer charged for examining COVID-19 vaccine deaths’). Of course, any attempts to expose injection deaths among police colleagues have no doubt been ‘discouraged’ despite evidence of their occurrence.

In any case, two critical questions to ask are these: Were government policies that led to police violence during the pandemic designed to provoke public anger and induce police retirements and resignations as ways of reducing police numbers easily? And was official interference in police decisions about whether or not to investigate injection deaths partly designed to disenchant conscientious officers and induce further resignation/retirements?

Why would governments do this? Could it be part of a plan to facilitate the transformation of how policing is conducted? After all, the World Economic Forum has been clear about the Elite intention to robotize the workforce, with more than half of human workers projected to be replaced by robots within a few years. See ‘Machines Will Do More Tasks Than Humans by 2025 but Robot Revolution Will Still Create 58 Million Net New Jobs in Next Five Years’. So why should we expect police to be forced out of the workforce, one way or another, at a lesser rate than elsewhere?

Moreover, there is an additional problem: Any human police officer with a reasonably ‘normal’ psychological profile has a conscience. And these will not serve well in enforcing the coming technocratic order.

Separately from the numbers issue, the ongoing militarization of police forces around the world has been noted by many scholars. For a summary of some issues in relation to policing in the USA, see this article written in 2017: ‘Why are Police in the USA so Terrified?’

But it is clear that the trend to militarize policing has been accelerating for some years. In a recent article US constitutional attorney John Whitehead succinctly elaborates this trend as just one of the features to be expected from the US government in 2023:

‘Militarized police. Having transformed local law enforcement into extensions of the military, the Department of Homeland Security, the Justice Department and the FBI are moving into the next phase of the transformation, turning the nation’s police officers into techno-warriors, complete with iris scanners, body scanners, thermal imaging Doppler radar devices, facial recognition programs, license plate readers, cell phone extraction software, Stingray devices and so much more.’ See ‘What to Expect from the Government in 2023? More of the Same’ and ‘Stingray Tracking Devices: Who’s Got Them?’

So police numbers are being reduced and police are being militarized. But that is not all.

Transhuman Police

A critical component of the Elite program is to turn those not killed into transhuman slaves.

What is transhumanism?

In essence: Transhumanism is a set of beliefs based on the premise that human beings can be improved by genetic manipulation and/or implanting technologies into the brain and body to achieve enhanced capacities. See ‘Beware the Transhumanists: How “Being Human” is being Re-engineered by the Elite’s Covid-19 Coup’.

While many people involved in this field are concerned with treating disabilities to improve the life experience of those afflicted, and some are engaged in ongoing discussions to consider the ethical issues this raises, it is clear that this is the sanitized version of a program that has far more hideous implications. For a sanitized version, watch this video of a World Economic Forum discussion held on 24 January 2020: ‘When Humans Become Cyborgs’.

But, for the Elite, there is little point deploying these technologies unless they can be controlled by Elite agents. After all, as the World Economic Forum made clear in 2016, by 2030 ‘You’ll Own Nothing. And You’ll Be Happy.’ See ‘8 predictions for the world in 2030’.

Obviously, if you are to own nothing and be happy about it, either you have reached some exalted state of human consciousness in which possessions no longer matter or someone is messing with your mind so that you believe what is not true.

And the best way to mess with someone’s mind is to implant a microchip into their body that enables control of that mind by someone else.

After all, altering what people think, feel, believe and do – through genetic manipulation and implanting technologies – is the very essence of transhumanism. So, to reiterate, transhumanists don’t want individuals with free will, they want individuals whose thoughts, feelings and behaviour can be controlled; that is, they want slaves. While this is explained at some length in the article ‘Beware the Transhumanists’ above, it is also made emphatically clear by World Economic Forum spokesperson, Professor Yuval Noah Harrari, in a 3-minute video which includes these words:

COVID is critical because this is what convinces people to accept, to legitimize, total biometric surveillance.

We now see mass surveillance systems established, even in democratic countries which previously rejected them, and we also see a change in the nature of surveillance. Previously, surveillance was mainly above the skin, now it’s going under the skin….

… free will: That’s over. Watch ‘Mr. Harari has just revealed the Reason for the Plandemic’.

You can also watch a video demonstration of Elon Musk’s neuralink chip illustrating how this will work. Watch ‘This Is How Elon Musk’s Neuralink Microchip Will Be Put In Your Brain’.

In summary then, the technology now available after decades of effort enables receiver nanochips to be sprayed, injected or otherwise implanted into human bodies. With the ongoing deployment of 5G (which includes extensive space and ground-based technologies: see ‘Deadly Rainbow: Will 5G Precipitate the Extinction of All Life on Earth?’), just one outcome of these combined technologies is that it will be possible to direct the individual behaviour of each person so implanted with directions from an external source.

You can watch a description of how the Covid-19 shots have been used to inject nanotechnology into the bodies of people which, under the direction of other individuals via EMF signals, can be assembled to establish a permanent communication and control link between the transhuman and those responsible for controlling it. Watch Maria Zeee’s interview of Dr. David Nixon who shows real time video footage of the nanotechnology inside the Covid-19 injections assembling robotic arms that guide the nanotechnology development: ‘World First: Robotic Arms Assembling Via Nanotech Inside COVID-19 “Vaccines” – Filmed in Real Time’.

There is another excellent video interview by Dr. Faiez Kirsten of Dr. Ana Mihalcea discussing the transhumanist agenda. This includes consideration of how geoengineering – by spraying metal particulates (such as aluminium, barium and strontium) and synthetic biology into the atmosphere – is being used to modify all life on this planet (‘to modify every cell, every microbe, to digitize it and then to fuse it in its natural state with synthetic biology’), the role of electromagnetic frequencies (EMF) such as 5G in this scheme, and the purpose of nanotechnology ingredients in the injections. In essence, they conclude, besides killing vast numbers of people, they want to control the minds of those left alive. In summarizing, Mihalcea emphasised that her research demonstrates that the unvaccinated are not safe and they must take further action to defend their health from the synthetic biology attacks through atmospheric geoengineering and contaminated food.

‘We are running out of time as the human species and our planet is being destroyed via synthetic biology. If you want to survive and you want your children and grandchildren to have a chance of survival you must rise now and you must fight.’ Watch ‘A Discussion with Dr Ana Mihalcea on Transhumanism and EDTA Chelation’.

Moreover, given that the control technology of its transhuman slaves will be owned by corporate executives, this means that the Elite will be able to control everything from the launch of nuclear weapons (by using remote control to direct the chosen individual in a particular chain of command to order [or execute] the launch of one or more nuclear weapons at the target[s] nominated at the time[s] specified), deploy ‘cyborg soldiers’, ‘cyborg workers’ and ‘cyborg consumers’ to do as directed and, of course, ‘cyborg police’ to carry out the orders issued by those controlling the command technology.

In the case of transhuman police, this could range from duties resembling those now performed by police to any other task whatsoever to which they are assigned. And because the implanted chip will override free will, the transhuman individual will have no awareness of choice and will simply robotically perform the tasks delivered by an artificial intelligence program to the technological implants in its body and brain.

So whether programmed to issue a fine, kill a noncompliant individual, forcibly relocate one or more people from a rural area to the nearest ‘smart city’ or simply go home, the cyborg police officer will do as directed without thought or feeling of its own.

Technocratic Police and Corporate Private Security

In 2016, the World Bank published a report considering some of the consequences of robotization, including the problems that would be caused and how these might, theoretically, be addressed. See ‘The rise of the machines: Economic and social consequences of robotization’ with a summary here: ‘The economic and social consequences of robotization’.

Despite one highly sanitized World Economic Forum account of robots leading to an increased workforce – see ‘Here’s why robots are actually going to increase human employment’ – another World Economic Forum report candidly noted that inequality would worsen as ‘robots will do half of all work tasks by 2025’. See ‘The Future of Jobs Report 2020’ and ‘WEF: Inequality likely to worsen as robots set to do half of work by 2025’.

And this is clearly evident in relation to police work where, beyond even the measures outlined above, a substantial range of new technologies will robotize policing, particularly in relation to primary functions: surveillance and control.

In essence, an increasing number of policing functions are being technologized to make policing more ruthlessly efficient. This involves use of a range of technologies such as 5G, the Internet of Things (IoT), the Internet of Bodies (IoB), the Internet of Places (IoP), artificial intelligence (AI), geofencing, digital identity, surveillance and facial recognition (3D) cameras, smart street poles and lights (which gather data via facial recognition cameras and environmental sensors, display digital signage and use speakers to instruct the immediate population how to behave), license plate readers and vehicle kill switches as well as autonomous and electromagnetic weapons.

But how these technologies are combined and deployed varies. To illustrate this, consider the Israeli private security company Gabriel Protects which offers a suite of surveillance and control services: ‘Preempt and contain physical threats in real time with smart technology. Billions are spent monitoring and recording security incidents. Gabriel detects and responds to them. Gabriel’s next generation security technology instantly detects and automates the response to violent threats, saving precious time and lives.’

As Whitney Webb explains: ‘much of the company’s future vision coincides with the vision of the intelligence agencies backing it – pre-crime, robotic policing and biometric surveillance.’ Hence, under the guise of stopping mass shootings ‘a surveillance system backed by top Mossad, CIA and FBI officials is being installed in schools, houses of worship, and other civilian locations’ throughout the USA. The Gabriel system includes the company’s ‘threat detection’ technology, which involves the use of ‘smart cameras’ that use AI as well as facial recognition and related technologies to detect weapons, ‘fights’ and ‘abnormal behavior’ in a particular area. The cameras throughout a facility, along with ‘smart shield’ panic buttons which can be activated both manually and remotely, are meant to act as ‘activation triggers’, with the triggering largely automated and managed by AI. When a trigger is set off, the Gabriel system enters the appropriate ‘alert mode’, which includes emergency, panic, silent panic and yellow (for minor incidents). Once activated, the panic button offers two-way communication, a live video feed and gunshot detection by acoustic means. See ‘CIA and Mossad-linked Surveillance System Quietly Being Installed Throughout the US’ and ‘Anonymous Philanthropist Gifts Israeli Life-Saving Tech to 500 US Synagogues and Schools’.

As one would expect, given the company is providing technologies that enable implementation of the Elite program to lock us all into their ‘smart cities’, Gabriel intends to expand far beyond schools and houses of worship to retail stores, warehouses, data centers and banks and is already heavily reliant on AI and machine learning while using drones and robots as security tools. Beyond this, it intends to develop predictive policing (‘pre-crime’) capabilities. See ‘Incident Response Solutions’ and ‘Disrupting Legacy Security’. Of course, ‘pre-crime’ protocols are designed to ‘eliminate public dissent’. See ‘CIA and Mossad-linked Surveillance System Quietly Being Installed Throughout the US’.

Gabriel is not the only corporation researching and providing technologies in these fields. Another prominent corporation is Palantir Technologies. There are others.

Needless to say, these corporations have close ties to the academy, the military and the intelligence community as well, all of which are also playing key roles in imposing the Elite program.

Obviously, these surveillance and control technologies are being widely deployed around the world with countries like China, Israel (including in Palestine) and the United States leading the way.

But to highlight precisely where this is headed, technocratic policing will include drones (used as aerial police) and robots equipped with electromagnetic weapons, such as those that tech guru Aman Jabbi calls ‘puke guns’ (to make the target individual vomit). See ‘Digitizing Your Identity is the Fast-Track to Slavery: How Can You Defend Your Freedom?’ And if you would like a taste of where this might go, see ‘Psychotronic and Electromagnetic Weapons: Remote Control of the Human Nervous System’.

Beyond this, police robots are being used to deploy chemical weapons – see ‘Special delivery: Using police robots to deploy chemical agents’ – and fire tasers. See ‘TASER-armed robots keep police out of harm’s way’.

But ‘explosive ordnance disposal robots’ have been used offensively since 1993 when a one-metre tall, 218-kilogram remote-controlled robot was sent into an apartment, used a television camera to locate a suspect hidden in a cupboard and then, under the remote-control direction of a technician, used a high-pressure water gun to knock the shotgun out of the suspected gunman’s hands, enabling the county police department’s version of a SWAT team to arrest him.

More dramatically, a police ‘killer robot’ has already been used to kill a suspected gunman. In 2016, police in Dallas in the USA crudely attached a bomb to a robot originally designed to investigate and safely discharge explosives and then deployed it near a suspect where it was detonated remotely. See ‘How the Dallas Police Used an Improvised Killer Robot to Take Down the Gunman’.

Other police forces are considering using robots to kill suspects. See, for example, ‘Oakland Cops Hope to Arm Robots with Lethal Shotguns’.

But the San Francisco Police Department has already developed a protocol for its use of robots to kill people: ‘Robots will only be used as a deadly force option when risk of loss of life to members of the public or officers are imminent and outweigh any other force option available to SFPD.’ See ‘Law Enforcement Equipment Policy: Inventory Acquired Prior to January 2022’ and ‘SFPD authorized to kill suspects using robots in draft policy’.

The fundamental point is that human police officers are being replaced by a series of technologies guided by artificial intelligence and ending with the use of autonomous weapons systems (AWS).

And these technologies are already being widely deployed and used as part of the ongoing Elite program to build a technocratic state that will subvert human identity, privacy, dignity, volition and freedom.

How Can We Resist this Technocratic Policing Model Effectively?

A long-planned, vast range and parallel sequence of measures is being rapidly implemented to capture political, social, economic, medical and technological control of the human population. The intention is to kill off a substantial proportion of humanity and imprison those left alive as transhuman slaves in the Elite’s technocratic (surveillance and control) ‘smart’ cities, which will be policed by a range of current and emerging technologies.

And, as I have explained previously – see ‘We Are Being Smashed Politically, Economically, Medically and Technologically by the Elite’s ‘Great Reset’: Why? How Do We Fight Back Effectively?’ – because the Global Elite controls conventional political, economic, financial, technological, medical, educational, media and other important levers of society, the Elite has control of how events unfold while simultaneously giving it control of the narrative about what is taking place. As a result, the truth about the Elite plan is easily concealed. Consequently, effective resistance to this complex and sophisticated program requires a response based on a full understanding of the Elite’s deeper agenda and that is equally sophisticated.

This means that we cannot rely on any conventional channel, political, legal or otherwise.

Hence, the most effective defence against any aspect, including the technocratic policing model, of the full program that Elite agents in the World Economic Forum and elsewhere are imposing on us is to take action now that prevents foundational components of their program from being put into place.

Obviously, this requires us to clearly identify the foundations on which the Elite program is being built and to then mobilize as many people as possible, in as many countries as possible, to nonviolently noncooperate with the building of these foundations or, to the extent they exist already, to disrupt them so that they cannot function effectively.

And the time to do this is now.

If we do this effectively, the technologies – including 5G, Artificial Intelligence (AI), digital ID, Central Bank Digital Currencies (CBDCs), geofencing, a plethora of ‘Smart’ devices, and the surveillance and facial recognition cameras – that will make the technocratic policing model possible will be stopped before they are fully deployed.

So if you are interested in being strategic in your resistance to the ‘Great Reset’ and its related agendas, you are welcome to participate in the ‘We Are Human, We Are Free’ campaign which identifies a list of 30 strategic goals for doing so.

One of these strategic goals reads as follows:

‘To cause the police and security personnel to resist the introduction and use of those surveillance and control technologies – including (among many others) 5G, 6G, the Internet of Things (IoT), artificial intelligence (AI), geofencing, smart street poles and lights (which gather data via facial recognition cameras and environmental sensors, display digital signage and use speakers to instruct the immediate population how to behave), digital identity, surveillance and facial recognition cameras, license plate readers, vehicle kill switches, drones (used as aerial police), robots (including as a ‘deadly force option’), autonomous and electromagnetic weapons – that are being used to transform policing to collect your data and control your behaviour as part of the ongoing Elite program to build a technocratic prison that will subvert human identity, human dignity, human volition, human privacy and/or human freedom.’

So one vital role that you can play is to talk to individual police officers that you know personally, inform them of the role they are slated to play in the coming technocratic order, and invite them to consider the implications of this for them and their loved ones, and then listen to them as they talk about it.

And you can visit your local police station or write them a letter to raise awareness of what is happening and ask them to consider whether this is a future they wish for themselves or their family.

In addition, you can download the ‘We Are Human, We Are Free’ one-page flyer that identifies a short series of crucial nonviolent actions that anyone can take. This flyer, now available in 23 languages (Chinese, Croatian, Czech, Danish, Dutch, English, Finnish, French, German, Greek, Hebrew, Hungarian, Italian, Japanese, Malay, Polish, Portuguese, Romanian, Russian, Serbian, Spanish, Slovak and Turkish) with several more languages in the pipeline, can be downloaded from here: ‘One-page Flyer’.

Moreover, if this strategic resistance to the ‘Great Reset’ (and related agendas) appeals to you, consider joining the ‘We Are Human, We Are Free’ Telegram group (with a link accessible from the website).

And if you want to organize a mass mobilization, such as a rally, at least make sure that one or more of any team of organizers and/or speakers is responsible for inviting people to participate in this campaign and that some people at the event are designated to hand out the one-page flyer about the campaign.

Ideally, prior to any such event, a liaison team should visit the police responsible for policing the event to discuss it but also raise awareness of how police are being used by the Elite in this context. See ‘Nonviolent Activism and the Police’ and ‘How To Do Police Liaison’.

At this point too, it is worth keeping in mind that in virtually all contexts, including when dealing with police, it is invaluable to listen, deeply. This should help you understand the other person better and might help open a door to greater awareness on their part in the future. In any case, it is a great gift, whatever its immediate outcome. See ‘Nisteling: The Art of Deep Listening’.

If you like, you can also watch, share and/or organize to show, a short video about the campaign here: ‘We Are Human, We Are Free’ video.

In parallel with our resistance, we must create the political, economic and social structures that serve our needs, not those of the Elite. That is why long-standing efforts to encourage and support people to grow their own biodynamic/organic food – see ‘23 Reasons You Should Start a Garden in 2023’ – participate in local trading schemes (involving the exchange of knowledge, skills, services and products with or without a local medium of exchange), such as Local Exchange Trading Systems and Community Exchange Systems, as well as develop structures for cooperation, governance, nonviolent defence and networking with other communities are so important.

Conclusion

To summarize very simply: human police officers are being militarily-equipped in the short term, to be rapidly replaced by transhuman police as well as ‘technocratic police’: artificial intelligence (AI) that will direct policing and involve transhuman police, drones, robots and autonomous & electromagnetic weapons systems (AWS). This is one small but vital part of the comprehensive Elite program to kill off most of us, enslave those left alive, enclose the Commons forever and capture all wealth.

Hence, one valuable function we can perform is to inform police of this and invite them to resist it.

Of course, it is not a message that will resonate with every police officer or every member of the community, for that matter. As you already know.

Many human beings, including police officers, are badly emotionally-damaged people. See ‘Why Violence?’ and ‘Fearless Psychology and Fearful Psychology: Principles and Practice’.

But it is crucial that we keep telling the truth and giving people chances to perceive the deeper Elite program and what it portends for humanity. Because it is not a future any human being, including police officer, should want to embrace if they value human identity, privacy, dignity, volition and freedom for themselves or their children.

Hence, our persistence in presenting the information, while listening well when appropriate, is crucial to mobilizing the resistance we need to succeed.

4/2023

Biodata: Robert J. Burrowes has a lifetime commitment to understanding and ending human violence. He has done extensive research since 1966 in an effort to understand why human beings are violent and has been a nonviolent activist since 1981. He is the author of ‘Why Violence?’ His email address is flametree@riseup.net and his website is here.

We Are Being Smashed Politically, Economically, Medically and Technologically by the Elite’s ‘Great Reset’: Why? How Do We Fight Back Effectively?

Posted on February 24, 2023 by Reid Mukai

By Robert J. Burrowes

Since the dawn of human civilization 5,000 years ago, ordinary people like you and me have been engaged in an endless struggle to resist efforts by elites, whether local, national, international or global, to assert complete control over us and the resources around us.

And for 5,000 years, with some wins and a great many losses, we have managed to stave off the worst.

Finally, in January 2020, the World Economic Forum launched its ‘Great Reset’: The final assault in the Elite’s long war against humankind and nature itself.

As we pass the third anniversary since this final battle was launched, it is well worth evaluating the progress of our resistance.

Is our resistance being effective? Are we succeeding?

Unfortunately, as is obvious from any serious evaluation, we are being smashed. Let me explain why.

[While they are not addressed in this article, I wish to acknowledge the range of other profound threats that pose a serious risk to any worthwhile human future, most notably the threat of nuclear war which arguably stands greater than at any previous time in human history.]

Evaluating Progress

Any strategy to resolve a conflict of this nature must begin with a sound analysis of what is happening:

Who is driving it (which answers the question ‘Who benefits?’) What do they intend? Why are they doing it? And how?

Only once these questions have been clearly answered is it possible to develop a strategy that will be adequate to the challenge posed by the threat.

So who is doing what?

Whatever we have been told by such organizations as the World Health Organization, national governments and the corporate media during the past three years, the most cursory investigation reveals that the World Economic Forum has been just behind the scenes effectively directing the response of governments to the threat supposedly posed by a ‘pathogenic virus’ labeled SARS-CoV-2.

However, any serious investigation will reveal that even the World Economic Forum is simply another ‘front’ for more powerful individuals and their organizations, which I call ‘the Global Elite’

– see ‘Historical Analysis of the Global Elite: Ransacking the World Economy Until “You’ll Own Nothing.”’

– and that no such thing as a ‘pathogenic virus’ has ever been isolated, including in the instance of SARS-CoV-2. See, for example, Christine Massey’s exhaustive attempts to identify a health or scientific institution anywhere in the world that has isolated the ‘virus’: ‘211 health/science institutions globally all failed to cite even 1 record of “SARS-COV-2” purification, by anyone, anywhere, ever’.

And if you want to watch or read other accounts carefully explaining why no ‘pathogenic virus’ has ever been isolated, here is a token sample of the extensive documentation of this point:

‘Dismantling the Virus Theory – The “measles virus” as an example’,

What Really Makes You Ill? Why everything you thought you knew about disease is wrong,

‘ZERO Evidence that COVID Fulfills Koch’s 4 Germ Theory Postulates – Dr. Andrew Kaufman & Sayer Ji’,

‘COVID-19: The virus does not exist – it is confirmed!’ and

‘Statement On Virus Isolation (SOVI)’.

In parallel with monumental efforts to convince us that we are living under enormous medical threat, and must submit to an onerous series of restrictions on our freedom, including multiple injections of a gene-altering bioweapon, a great deal has been going on that has been deliberately obscured from public view.

However, while information about this program is readily available to those who investigate – see, for example, the World Economic Forum’s ‘Great Reset’ – the reality is that few people have investigated because they were terrorized into believing the cover story: Their life was threatened by a ‘virus’.

But if we spend time investigating the material presented on the World Economic Forum’s ‘Great Reset’ website and reading critiques of it offered by well-informed researchers, one has no difficulty discovering that, on behalf of the Global Elite, the WEF is now implementing the Elite’s long-planned changes to 200 areas of human life.

To briefly elaborate just one set of changes being imposed as part of this program, consider the prospect of our technological imprisonment as transhuman slaves in ‘smart cities’.

What does this mean?

In essence: the Elite is rapidly building a complete technocracy based on surveillance and control technologies.

These technologies include (among many others) 5G, 6G, the Internet of Things (which will be connected to artificial intelligence [AI] programs that monitor the network of ‘smart’ devices you were deceived into implanting in your body and installing in your home),

geofencing (which will technologically confine you to five kilometres from where you live),

smart street poles and lights (which will gather data via facial recognition cameras and environmental sensors,

display digital signage and use speakers to instruct the immediate population how to behave), digital identity (which will be used to control your access to ‘approved’ activities),

central bank digital currencies (that will be used to control what you can buy,

how much of it and where),

surveillance and (3D) facial recognition cameras deployed in all public spaces (to monitor your movements and control your access), license plate readers, vehicle kill switches,

drones (used as aerial police), robots (including as a ‘deadly force option’) as well as autonomous and electromagnetic weapons. Beyond this, transhuman slaves will become ancilliary ‘workers’ in an increasingly robotized workforce.

To reiterate, these technologies will be used to monitor your every movement and completely control your behaviour, including by using the utterly transformed model of AI policing by drones and robots armed with electromagnetic weapons, as just touched upon.

In case it is not already obvious, this Elite-controlled technocratic prison will subvert human identity, human dignity, human volition, human privacy and human freedom.

Everything that makes human life worth living will be taken from you.

Why is the Elite doing this?

In brief, using a variety of means, this program based on a reduction of a substantial proportion of the human population, as is now happening, imprison those left alive as transhuman slaves in technocratic ‘smart cities’, enclose the Commons forever and deliver all remaining wealth into Elite hands.

Hence, according to the WEF, by 2030 ‘You’ll Own Nothing. And You’ll Be Happy.

’ See ‘3.5 BILLION could be injured or killed by the jab. Are YOU ready?’,

‘Killing Off Humanity: How The Global Elite Is Using Eugenics And Transhumanism To Shape Our Future’,

‘Beware the Transhumanists: How “Being Human” Is Being Re-Engineered by the Elite’s Coup’ and ‘8 predictions for the world in 2030’.

And how is the Elite implementing this heinous program?

While the brief discussion above highlights the responsibility of the Global Elite for planning this program and then having it implemented through Elite agents including the World Economic Forum, relevant international organizations such as the WHO, national governments, pharmaceutical corporations and national medical associations, a critically important role has long been played by education systems, the corporate entertainment industry as well as the corporate media in ensuring that what most people regard as ‘knowledge’ and what most people believe is ‘true’ is always consistent with the Elite-promoted narrative.

See, for example, ‘Do We Want School or Education?’ and Propaganda.

Hence, in the current context, government media channels and most corporate newspapers, television and radio news programs as well as corporate social media giants have heavily promoted the Elite-driven narrative and routinely censored those telling the truth in exposing the Elite program.

See ‘WHO Labels Unvaccinated People a “Major Killing Force Globally”’ and ‘Propaganda Perpetuates the Pandemic and Censorship’.

As a result, while some people resisted the onerous restrictions on human freedom, few of these people understood the genuine threat that we faced from the elite plan concealed behind the ‘virus’/‘vaccine’ narrative. Consequently, most resistance has been focused on the wrong people, using ineffective means and with negligible understanding of what is taking place.

Hence, we are three years into this crisis that portends profound changes to human society, including the death of billions of people and the transhuman enslavement of virtually all those left alive, with only negligible progress in resisting this long-planned and sophisticated Elite program.

Let me elaborate.

We Are Being Smashed Politically

With the vast bulk of the human population trapped in the delusion that governments make the important decisions that shape our lives, virtually all effort to halt the substantial encroachments on our identity, dignity, volition, rights and freedom, including the injection mandates, has been directed at protest demonstrations, lobbying politicians (or voting for them) and petition-signing with those mobilized demanding that governments withdraw the restrictions and mandates.

This has meant that three years of efforts to mobilize people to resist have been misdirected and the resulting demonstrations, lobbying/voting and petitions have absorbed and dissipated the dissent, as those who truly govern intend.

As has been systematically documented, Elites of a local, regional, national, international and, most recently, global reach have controlled the political destiny of the population over which they exercised jurisdiction making the word ‘government’ a meaningless term. For a brief elaboration of this point, see

‘The Elite Coup to Kill or Enslave Us: Why Can’t Governments, Legal Actions and Protests Stop Them?’

Beyond this, however, since World War II there has been an ongoing series of developments to create global infrastructure that subverts any remaining national sovereignty while shifting power to the Global Elite.

Among many initiatives, for example, the Global Public-Private Partnership has been presented by Klaus Schwab and Peter Vanham, on behalf of the World Economic Forum.

See Stakeholder Capitalism: A Global Economy that Works for Progress, People and Planet summarized in ‘What is stakeholder capitalism?’

While this sanitized account obscures the threat it poses to humankind, Iain Davis and Whitney Webb have thoughtfully critiqued it

– see ‘Sustainable Debt Slavery’

– noting that even a 2016 UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs report

– see ‘Public-Private Partnerships and the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development: Fit for purpose?’

– also found it ‘unfit for purpose’.

So what is it? According to Davis, the Global Public-Private Partnership (G3P) is a worldwide network of stakeholder capitalists and their partners:

the Bank for International Settlements,

central banks, global (including media) corporations,

the ‘philanthropic’ foundations of multi-billionaires,

policy think tanks,

governments (and their agencies),

key non-governmental organizations and global charities,

selected academic and scientific institutions, labour unions and other chosen ‘thought leaders’. (You can see an instructive diagram in the article cited below.)

The G3P controls the world economy and global finance.

‘It sets world, national and local policy (via global governance) and then promotes those policies using the mainstream media’, typically distributes the policies through an intermediary such as the IMF, WHO or IPCC and uses governments to transform G3P global governance into hard policy, legislation and law at the national level. ‘In this way, the G3P controls many nations at once without having to resort to legislation.

This has the added advantage of making any legal challenge to the decisions made by the most senior partners in the G3P (an authoritarian hierarchy) extremely difficult.’ In short: global governance has already superseded the national sovereignty of states: ‘National governments had been relegated to creating the G3P’s enabling environment by taxing the public and increasing government borrowing debt.’ See ‘What Is the Global Public-Private Partnership?’

As Davis notes:

We are supposed to believe that a G3P-led system of global governance is beneficial for us and to accept that global corporations are committed to putting humanitarian and environmental causes before profit, when the conflict of interest is obvious. ‘Believing this requires a considerable degree of naïveté.’

Davis clearly perceives ‘an emergent global, corporate dictatorship that cares not one whit about truly stewarding the planet.

The G3P will determine the future state of global relations, the direction of national economies, the priorities of societies, the nature of business models and the management of a global commons. There is no opportunity for any of us to participate in either their project or the subsequent formation of policy.’ Davis goes on:

‘in theory, governments do not have to implement G3P policy, in reality they do. Global policies have been an increasing facet of our lives in the post-WW2 era…. It doesn’t matter who you elect, the policy trajectory is set at the global governance level. This is the dictatorial nature of the G3P and nothing could be less democratic.’

But, as explained previously and despite the claim by Davis of ‘an emergent global, corporate dictatorship’, this is just one of the more recent manifestations of national sovereignty being usurped by a Global Elite intent on removing even the delusion of any form of citizen engagement in policy determination and implementation. See ‘Historical Analysis of the Global Elite: Ransacking the World Economy Until “You’ll Own Nothing.”’

And just to highlight the impotence of Presidents and Prime Ministers, let alone lesser government figures, if a political leader steps out of line, they are simply removed or killed, with an extensive historical list of uncooperative political leaders removed or killed in coups – see ‘Overthrowing Other People’s Governments: The Master List of U.S. “Regime Changes”’ – and, in the current context, five assassinated so far. See ‘Five Presidents Who Opposed Covid Vaccines Have Conveniently Died, Been Replaced by Pro-Vaxxers’.

But, obviously, it doesn’t usually get to this. The Elite has a multitude of measures that enable it to control what most people like to believe are ‘democratic’ processes. For example, have you heard of the World Economic Forum’s ‘Young Global Leaders’ program in which the Forum indoctrinates carefully recruited young people to play their lifetime part in implementing Elite initiatives. You don’t get chosen for this program, or graduate from it, if you don’t have impeccable credentials. Just ask people as ‘diverse’ as President Emmanuel Macron, President Vladimir Putin and Prime Minister Justin Trudeau.

As WEF head Klaus Schwab boasted at Harvard University’s John F. Kennedy School of Government in 2017:

‘What we are very proud of, is that we penetrate the global cabinets of countries with our WEF Young Global Leaders… like Justin Trudeau.’ Watch ‘WEF’s Klaus Schwab Boasts of Young Global Leaders Penetration of Western Cabinets’.

But the YGL isn’t the only program of this nature. Have you heard of Schwarzman Scholars?

And if you think that we have legal redress to defend all those rights and freedoms supposedly guaranteed by a plethora of treaties, conventions, national constitutions and human rights laws, then you haven’t been paying attention while these have long been systematically ignored, if not simply wiped out. After all, legal systems exist to defend Elite power, profit and privilege, as the record demonstrates. See ‘The Rule of Law: Unjust and Violent’.

Next time you hear of a legal ruling that appears to favour ‘ordinary’ people, check back some months and years later to see if it survived the usual appeal processes and was ever actually implemented. And, if it was, did it actually change anything or simply lead to more of the same, as happens, for example, when a corporation is occasionally fined for some outrageous behaviour but absorbs the fine as a ‘cost of doing business’.

In summary, if you believe that international or national legal processes will hold the Global Elite (and not just the occasional scapegoated minion) to account, strike down vaccine mandates and a vast range of other violations of human rights, or even allow some of us to get some form of genuine compensation for the vast death, injury and damage inflicted historically or even just during the last three years, then I simply encourage you to read some history to see if you can find any evidence to support your belief.

We Are Being Smashed Economically

While many people have noted the damage done to the world economy by a series of measures supposedly carried out in response to the threat posed by the ‘virus’, ranging from lockdowns (which shuttered vast areas of the economy by disrupting all parts of the global supply chain and stopped most people from working) to vaccine mandates, the fact is that these measures were just the latest and most visible in a 5,000-year history of Elite action to secure and consolidate economic control, progressively enclose the Commons, enslave the human population in work to achieve Elite ends and capture all wealth, among other outcomes explained elsewhere in this article.

I have explained and illustrated this point at great length in this study: ‘Historical Analysis of the Global Elite: Ransacking the World Economy Until “You’ll Own Nothing.”’

But the essence of this report is simple: Building on millennia of effort, since the late C19^th a small group of extraordinarily politically powerful and wealthy families, that I call the Global Elite, has accelerated previous efforts to create a global political, economic and legal infrastructure that facilitates the unending concentration of Elite power. This includes effective ownership and control of all key components of the economy including the banking, asset management, weapons, energy, technology, agrochemical, food, mining, pharmaceutical and media industries.

In this world order, neither international governmental organizations such as the United Nations nor national organizations such as governments have any significant say in what takes place. And you don’t either.

We Are Being Smashed Medically

As noted above, there is no documented scientific proof that any such thing as a ‘pathogenic virus’ has ever been isolated, including in the instance of SARS-CoV-2.

But underlying this fact is a very lengthy story about how many long-standing traditional natural healing methods that are very powerful and were used for millennia were systematically discredited and destroyed, as well as how a conflict of ideas about how to approach the maintenance of human health – characterised by the opposing views of Antoine Béchamp and Louis Pasteur in the C19^th – culminated in the success of the latter’s ideas, because they enabled a rapid advance in the development of the centralized control desired by Elites, thus replacing long-standing and effective systems of health with one designed to attack human health and kill the patient or precipitate their (highly profitable) lifetime dependency on drugs.

Beyond this, however, ongoing strenuous efforts have consistently been made since the late C19^th to control the health, medical and pharmaceutical information available to the public to ensure the suppression of effective treatments for various illnesses, including cancer – see Gerson Therapy – and thus ensure the profitability of the lethal medical, pharmaceutical, processed (including junk) food and confectionery industries, among others, as well as to endlessly consolidate the ever-tightening control over the human population exercised through medical means including through the latest manifestation of this effort, the Covid-19 scam.

However, like many subjects of this nature, much of the documentation in relation to this history has been carefully suppressed or eliminated, one way or another. Nevertheless you can read a sample of books that document it here:

Béchamp or Pasteur? A Lost Chapter in the History of Biology and Pasteur: Plagiarist, Impostor: The Germ Theory Exploded,

Medical Nemesis: The Expropriation of Health,

Murder by Injection: The Story of the Medical Conspiracy Against America and Death by Medicine;

check out the ‘Table Of Iatrogenic Deaths In The United States’; watch a reasonable summary of the disaster known as ‘modern medicine’ in ‘Rockefeller Medicine’ and watch Katherine Watt systematically outline the ‘authorization’ and illegalities of the Covid-19 measures in the USA. See ‘Katherine Watt presentation’.

In any case, as we discovered during the period supposedly marked by the Covid-19 ‘pandemic’ and, as noted above, despite the complete absence of any scientific evidence of the existence of any such thing as a ‘pathogenic virus’, including in the instance of SARS-CoV-2, we were nevertheless subjected to a wide range of measures that constituted martial law and violated a wide range of our human and constitutional rights.

In addition, just one of a host of ongoing measures is the World Health Organization’s current attempt to usurp national and individual sovereignty and capture full control of the human population through its ‘Pandemic Treaty’ and update of the International Health Regulations – see ‘Strengthening WHO preparedness for and response to health emergencies: Proposal for amendments to the International Health Regulations (2005)’ – which proposed the outright negation of a range of longstanding human rights, among other objectionable provisions, and has been critiqued by many authors. See, for example, ‘Amendments to WHO’s International Health Regulations: An Annotated Guide’, ‘“Pandemic Treaty” will hand WHO keys to global government’, ‘WHO Pandemic Treaty and the Banality of Evil’ and ‘The Top 100 REASONS to #StopTheTreaty, #StopTheAmendments, and #ExitTheWHO’.

Notably, for example, James Roguski characterized the proposed changes to the International Health Regulations as amounting to ‘medical martial law’ and, out of a list of 100 reasons he compiled for opposing the proposed changes, he highlighted ten that were particularly offensive. These included the facts that the proposed changes would alter the status of the WHO from an advisory body to one that made proclamations that are binding on governments; remove from Article 3 a provision requiring ‘respect for dignity, human rights and fundamental freedoms of people’; give the WHO the power to mandate medical examination, proof of prophylaxis, proof of vaccine, contact tracing, quarantine and treatment; institute an intrusive system of digital (or paper) health certificates; and greatly expand the WHO’s capacity to censor what they believe to be misinformation or disinformation, among many other onerous provisions. See ‘A World-Wide Call to Take Immediate and Massive Action’.

Given that these proposed changes to the draft Regulations violate long-standing laws, implemented following the Nuremberg trials of Nazi doctors – see ‘The Nuremberg Code, 1947’ – protecting people’s right to choose whether or not to seek the form of medical treatment of their choice, it is clear that the Elite interests that have exercised ever-deepening control of human society are intent on continuing to use the pharmaceutical and medical industries as key tools in their armory to kill off significant numbers of people and control those left alive.

As an aside, while Katherine Watt carefully details the ongoing militarization of public health since the 1960s and the use of US military ‘kill box’ planning and tactics in relation to Covid-19 – see ‘Kill Box: Multi-Service Tactics, Techniques and Procedures for Kill Box Planning and Employment’ – she attributes this approach to the ‘globalist central bankers’ realizing that pharmaceutical killing enabled a more credible ‘plausible deniability’ and more reliable basis for legal impunity, compared to some of its other measures – such as orchestrated wars, famines and financial crises – for killing off substantial human populations. See ‘Katherine Watt presentation’.

But, in fact, the Global Elite is well aware that there is no prospect of it being held accountable, legally or otherwise, just as its predecessor Elites have never been held accountable for their millennia-long rampage to kill off substantial human populations through wars, imperialism, colonialism, acts of genocide against indigenous and other peoples, the trans-Atlantic slave trade, precipitated famines, the functioning of capitalism, precipitation of depressions and other financial crises, as well as other measures. Why won’t the Global Elite be held accountable now? For the same reason Elites have never been held accountable, as illustrated above: A range of measures give it control over governments and legal systems, as well as control of the narrative (via ownership of the corporate media). See ‘Historical Analysis of the Global Elite: Ransacking the World Economy Until “You’ll Own Nothing.”’

And, just briefly on another initiative, Leo Hohmann has drawn attention to a new category added to the WHO’s International Classification of Diseases: a code specifically for those who are unvaxxed in relation to Covid-19 and another for those who have had inadequate booster shots. In short, your doctor will be required to advise your ‘disease’ if you have not been vaccinated.

See ‘EXCLUSIVE Special Report: Medical profession implements WHO digital diagnosis code for the unvaxxed’.

As the past three years have demonstrated, after more than a century of harm and killing on a prodigious scale, with ‘medical error’ ranking third on the list of causes of death in the USA, the pharmaceutical-medical complex has been let loose to wreak havoc on humanity. And it is not over yet. See ‘Who’s Driving the Pandemic Express?’ and watch the plan for the next ‘pandemic’, already available: ‘Catastrophic Contagion’.

So if you think the threat to our health from the pharmaceutical-medical industry is over, the reality is that we have simply had the first, ‘warm-up’ round of what must be a very long fight.

We Are Being Smashed Technologically

While most people embrace any new technology without question, the most casual investigation soon reveals that most technologies being made now can be used to surveil and control us and/or to harm or kill us outright. And given that this is the explicit intention behind ‘smart’ technologies, the long-planned and incredibly detailed Elite program to kill off many of us and build a technocracy in which we are permanently enslaved is proceeding at a breathtaking pace.

If you doubt this, have a look at the extensive range of videos and ‘Transformation Maps’ accessible from the World Economic Forum’s ‘Strategic Intelligence’ website.

Among the critically important technologies that are making this transhuman enslavement possible, the deployment of 5G, introduction of Digital Identity and the shift to Central Bank Digital Currencies (CBDCs) are vital and are being rapidly rolled out around the world as you read this article. As a matter of interest, were you consulted about any of this? Were you shown the extensive documentation of the dangers of the electromagnetic radiation from 5G? See ‘Deadly Rainbow: Will 5G Precipitate the Extinction of All Life on Earth?’

Were you informed that your Digital ID will make your freedom and privacy a thing of the past, especially when your social credit score has been determined? See ‘Digitizing Your Identity is the Fast-Track to Slavery: How Can You Defend Your Freedom?’ And have you been told that, based on your social credit score, the CBDCs will be used to control where you can spend your ‘money’, on what it can be spent and how much you can spend at any one time in any one place?

Beyond this, have you been consulted about the facial recognition (which record and store a 3D representation of your face) and surveillance cameras being installed everywhere?

With some 20 billion cameras already installed, there will be plenty to keep an eye on you, wherever you are.

And did you know these cameras will be linked to artificial intelligence that will be keeping exact track of your movements. Of course, your phone, other smart household devices, along with the license plate readers and vehicle kill switches will make sure that you are kept within the 5 kilometres you are allowed to travel from your home, once you are technologically imprisoned in one of the Elite’s ‘smart’ (Self-Monitoring, Analysis and Reporting Technology) cities. With geofencing, that is simple.

See ‘“SMART Cities” worldwide being converted into “open concentration camps,” says ex-Silicon Valley engineer turned whistleblower’ and

‘China’s Futuristic City Is a Test of Its Planning Power: Xiongan is a window into Xi Jinping’s ambitions’.

In his thoughtful article on ‘smart’ cities, technocracy expert Patrick Wood briefly explains why smart cities are central to Elite plans: Because cities don’t have the physical resources – the land which makes it possible to farm, mine resources, harvest timber and so on – found in rural areas, the technocrats devised a strategy to force people from rural to urban settings and then imprison them there. See ‘Day 9: Technocracy And Smart Cities’.

And remember when you gave a voice recording as biometric evidence that it was your bank account? How safe was that, do you think? See

‘Neural Codec Language Models are Zero-Shot Text to Speech Synthesizers’,

‘VALL-E: Neural Codec Language Models are Zero-Shot Text to Speech Synthesizers’ and

‘Microsoft’s new AI can simulate anyone’s voice with 3 seconds of audio’.

While much more could be written about the technological hell that is being built around us, a little time reading about the Metaverse is well worth the effort if you want a clearer understanding of the technocratic dystopia in which we might soon live. See ‘Virtual Beauty, Virtual Freedom, Virtual Love: Is the ~~Matrix~~ Metaverse Our Future?’

If you still doubt the technological threat we face, the good news is that key Elite agents in this context are happy to spell it out. For example, consider reading this original World Government Summit report written in 2018 with Elite projections for 2071: ‘Government in 2071: Guidebook. Preparing for new frontiers’.

At the latest World Government Summit just held in Dubai from 13-15 February 2023, Klaus Schwab was his usual, straightforward self: ‘Our life 10 years from now will be completely different, very much affected, and who masters [fourth industrial revolution] technologies, in some way, will be the masters of the world’. He also warns that failure to master these advanced technologies could mean that people like you and me ‘escape our power’. Watch ‘Klaus Schwab Calls For Global Government To “Master” AI Technologies’.

So unless you see yourself in the category of those who will master and control these technologies, and hence the rest of us, you will not be one of the ‘masters of the world’. You can read another critique of the recent conference, outlining more of the horrors being planned for us, here:

‘World Government Summit: How the Merging of Humans and Technology Will Define the Next 50 Years’.

To summarize: Virtually all of us have been surrendering our personal data for decades and most of it is still stored on a government or corporate computer in a databank (referred to, misleadingly, as ‘the cloud’) where it can be accessed to determine your future social credit score (and everything that this score will, and will not, allow). Combined with the substantial range of technologies now available that are able to use this data in a multiplicity of ways, you will soon be imprisoned in a technocratic slave city, subject to the arbitrary rule of our ‘masters’, with escape virtually impossible.

In essence, we are endlessly being promised greater privacy, security and convenience. But all the evidence suggests that your data makes it very convenient for the Elite to invade your privacy and deny you security. And, of course, freedom simply won’t exist.

Why Fear Is Preventing Humanity from Resisting the Elite Program Strategically

As parents, teachers and religious figures, we are told we are responsible for socializing our children. In practice, as everyone unconsciously understands this, it means that we terrorize children into being submissively obedient.

How do we do this? We inflict an unending stream of violence – in three categories I have labeled ‘visible’, ‘invisible’ and ‘utterly invisible’ – on the children in our lives. The sophistication of this program of terrorizing children is obscured from public view because the bulk of the everyday violence we adults inflict is, literally, ‘invisible’ or even ‘utterly invisible’; that is, the behaviour is not perceived or acknowledged as violent even though that is how it is perceived by children who are on the receiving end of it. Moreover, it was perceived by us as violent when we were children but we were terrorized into suppressing our awareness of this reality. For a full explanation, see

‘Why Violence?’, ‘Fearless Psychology and Fearful Psychology: Principles and Practice’

and ‘Do We Want School or Education?’

So while other supposedly psychological explanations of what has transpired historically (the causes of war, imperialism, colonialism, genocide, slavery and a host of other heinous elements of human history) or even during the past three years, are routinely promulgated – see, for example, Mattias Desmet’s theory of ‘mass formation’:

‘The Psychology of Totalitarianism: From rationalism to mass formation – and towards Truth speech’ – any popularity they acquire is simply the result of the fact that they divert responsibility from us as individuals. After all, if we do not feel responsible for what is happening why should we do anything about it?

One needs courage to face the truth, and to respond to it powerfully, and courage is not an attribute that can be genuinely ascribed to many people.

It is difficult to investigate the truth when a childhood of being terrorized into obediently believing and doing what you are told stands in the way.

Hence, human history proceeds in a simple linear fashion: We use violence to terrorize children into submissive obedience while using more (particularly ‘invisible’ and ‘utterly invisible’) violence to force them to suppress awareness of that fact. The child grows up having unconsciously ‘learned’ to use violence to achieve many outcomes, but particularly how to use violence against their own children to make them obedient. So violence is endlessly recycled: wars and violence of all kinds – against ourselves, other people and nature in an infinite variety of ways and settings – repeat endlessly.

Because it is not the violence we end up being too terrorized to confront. It is our own fear. Again, see ‘Why Violence?’

So we are rapidly entering a world in which all of that terrorizing of children has left us with a world of submissively obedient adults who are doing what they are told by international agencies, their government and the corporate media: Get injected four, six, eight… times; remain ‘locked down’ or, soon, in your ‘smart’ city prison; submit your data for a digital ID and a social credit score; accept the surveillance and control technologies without question (although they will tell you it is for your convenience, privacy and security just as your parents told you obedience ‘was for your own good’ when you were a child), and accept the delusional symbols of ‘freedom’ represented by your ability to travel up to 5 kilometres from your home to do one of the approved activities and to wear a metaverse mask to delude yourself that you are in a place you would prefer to be.

Does this sound insane to you? Of course it is. Do you think the Elite is insane? Of course it is. See ‘The Global Elite is Insane Revisited’.

So while most people will fearfully delude themselves that ‘the worst is behind us’, those who are paying attention know that this fight has barely begun and that the Elite has a 50-year timeframe to impose their full program upon us, even if the worst will happen by 2030.

This means that if we are to survive not only the current onslaught but also maintain our commitment and capacity to sustain our struggle for years and, possibly, decades, we need to ensure that we are paying careful attention to our own emotional health and that of our family members and the people in our community too.

For adults generally, this means ‘Putting Feelings First’ and, when supporting others, using ‘Nisteling: The Art of Deep Listening’.

For parents and concerned adults, it means making ‘My Promise to Children’.

How Can We Resist Effectively?

And, as I have explained previously and above, because the Global Elite controls conventional political, economic, financial, technological, medical, educational, media and other important levers of society, the Elite has control of how events unfold while simultaneously giving it control of the narrative about what is taking place. As a result, the truth about the Elite plan is easily concealed. Consequently, effective resistance to this complex and sophisticated program requires a response based on a full understanding of the Elite’s deeper agenda and that is equally sophisticated.

This means that we cannot rely on any conventional channel, political, legal or otherwise.

It also means that those campaigns based on a disintegrated set of actions that lack strategic focus can achieve nothing, although they mislead those resisting into wasting their effort: a rapid path to disempowerment and disenchantment for those deceived by people deluding themselves that they understand strategy.

The only way we can defeat this long-planned, complex and multifaceted threat, is to mobilize sufficient people all over the world who are willing to nonviolently noncooperate with its foundational components, that is, those elements that make the entire Elite program possible.

In addition and more simply, you can download the one-page flyer that identifies a short series of crucial nonviolent actions that anyone can take. This flyer, now available in 23 languages (Chinese, Croatian, Czech, Danish, Dutch, English, Finnish, French, German, Greek, Hebrew, Hungarian, Italian, Japanese, Malay, Polish, Portuguese, Romanian, Russian, Serbian, Spanish, Slovak and Turkish) with several more languages in the pipeline, can be downloaded from here: ‘One-page Flyer’.

If this strategic resistance to the ‘Great Reset’ (and related agendas) appeals to you, consider joining the ‘We Are Human, We Are Free’ Telegram group (with a link accessible from the website).

If you like, you can also watch, share and/or organize to show, a short video about the campaign here: ‘We Are Human, We Are Free’ video.

In parallel with our resistance, we must create the political, economic and social structures that serve our needs, not those of the Elite. That is why long-standing efforts to encourage and support people to grow their own food – see ‘23 Reasons You Should Start a Garden in 2023’ – participate in local trading schemes (involving the exchange of knowledge, skills, services and products with or without a local medium of exchange) and develop structures for cooperation, governance, nonviolent defence and networking with other communities are so important.

Of course, indigenous peoples still have many of these capacities – lost to vast numbers of humans as civilization has expanded over the past five millennia – but many people are now engaged in renewed efforts to create local communities, such as ecovillages, and local trading schemes, including Community Exchange Systems. Obviously, we must initiate/expand these forms of individual and community engagement in city neighbourhoods too. And we must learn to defend them as well.

In addition, to reiterate, if you want to raise children who are powerfully able to investigate, analyze and act, you are welcome to make ‘My Promise to Children’.

Conclusion

We are currently living in the final phase of a 5,000 year effort to impose total control over the human population. There are many reasons why it has reached this point. Some key reasons are explained above. And despite the comfortable delusion that the most obvious and onerous restrictions that we have experienced over the past three years have temporarily receded, the fact remains that a vast range of political, economic, medical and technological measures are being implemented as you read these words and we have only just ended the first round of what must be, if we are to be successful, a protracted fight.

In essence, what we do between now and 2030 will determine the fate of humanity. If we can mobilize enough people to resist strategically, we will succeed. But there is little sign of that so far.

Understanding how power works in the world system as well as who, precisely, is driving what is happening, what they are doing, why, and how they are doing it are crucial prerequisites for developing an effective strategy to resist the current Elite program to kill off a substantial proportion of humanity, enslave those left alive in a technocratic prison, enclose the Commons forever and consolidate all wealth in Elite hands.

It is the failure to understand these crucial points that accounts for the ineffective ‘resistance’ that has characterized the past three years.

And this is complicated by the fact that fear makes most people unable to learn either from their own failed experience or to seriously investigate what is happening and how to resist it most effectively. So they fearfully repeat what is familiar, without even asking if it has worked in the past.

So each passing day we still witness fruitless attempts to convince one elite agent or another – a politician, a judge, a corporate media executive… – to take action that will turn the tide in our favour. But none of these individuals can help us.

The reality is simple: If we do not act strategically ourselves, and mobilize sufficient others to do so too, then human identity and freedom will be lost forever.

Biodata: Robert J. Burrowes has a lifetime commitment to understanding and ending human violence. He has done extensive research since 1966 in an effort to understand why human beings are violent and has been a nonviolent activist since 1981. He is the author of ‘Why Violence?’ http://tinyurl.com/whyviolence His email address is flametree@riseup.net and his website is here. http://robertjburrowes.wordpress.com

The Digitization Of Humanity Shows Why The Globalist Agenda Is Evil

Posted on January 24, 2023 by Reid Mukai

By Brandon Smith

Source: Alt-Market.us

In recent weeks I’ve been seeing an interesting narrative fallacy being sold to the general public when it comes to the designs of globalists. The mainstream media and others are now openly suggesting that it’s actually okay to be opposed to certain aspects of groups like the World Economic Forum. They give you permission to be concerned, just don’t dare call it conspiracy.

This propaganda is a deviation from the abject denials we’re accustomed to hearing in the Liberty Movement for the past decade or more. We have all been confronted with the usual cognitive dissonance – The claims that globalist groups “just sit around talking about boring economic issues” and nothing they do has any bearing on global politics or your everyday life. In some cases we were even told that these groups of elites “don’t exist”.

Now, the media is admitting that yes, perhaps the globalists do have more than just a little influence over governments, social policies and economic outcomes. But, what the mainstream doesn’t like is the assertion that globalists have nefarious or authoritarian intentions. That’s just crazy tinfoil hat talk, right?

The reason for the narrative shift is obvious. Far too many people witnessed the true globalist agenda in action during the pandemic lockdowns and now they see the conspiracy for what it is. The globalists, in turn, seem to have been shocked to discover many millions of people in opposition to the mandates and the refusals to comply were clearly far greater than they expected. They are still trying to push their brand of covid fear, but the cat is out of the bag now.

They failed to get what they wanted in the west, which was a perpetual Chinese-style medical tyranny with vaccine passports as the norm. So, the globalist strategy has changed and they are seeking to adapt. They admit to a certain level of influence, but they pretend as if they are benevolent or indifferent.

The response to this lie is relatively straightforward. I could point out how Klaus Schwab of the WEF savored the thrill of the initial pandemic outbreak and declared that covid was the perfect “opportunity” to initiate what the WEF calls the “Great Reset.”

I could also point out that Klaus Schwab’s vision of the Reset, what he calls the “4^th Industrial Revolution”, is a veritable nightmare world in which Artificial Intelligence runs everything, society is condensed into digital enclaves called “smart cities” and people are oppressed by carbon taxation. I could point out that the WEF actively supports the concept of the “Shared Economy” in which you will “own nothing, have no privacy” and you will supposedly be happy about it, but only because you won’t have any other choice.

What I really want to talk about, however, is the process by which the elites hope to achieve their dystopian epoch, as well as the globalist mindset which lends itself to the horrors of technocracy. The common naive assumption among skeptics of conspiracy is that the globalists are regular human beings with the same drives and limited desires as the rest of us. They might have some power, but world events are still random and certainly not controlled.

This is a fallacy. The globalists are not like us. They are not human. Or, I should say, they despise humanity and seek to do away with it. And, because of this, they have entirely different aspirations compared to the majority of us which include aspirations of dominance.

What we are dealing with here are not normal people with conscience, ethics or empathy. Their behavior is much more akin to higher functioning psychopaths and sociopaths rather than the everyday person on the street. We saw this on full display during the covid lockdowns and the vicious attempts to enforce vaccine passports; their actions betray their long game.

Take a look at comments by New Zealand’s prime minister and WEF attendee, Jacinda Ardern, from a year ago. She admits to the deliberate tactic of creating a two-tier class system within her own country based on vaccination status. There is no remorse or guilt in her demeanor, she is proud of taking such authoritarian actions despite numerous studies that prove the mandates are ineffective.

Beyond the covid response, though, I suggest people who deny globalist conspiracy take a deeper dive into the philosophical roots of organizations like the WEF. Their entire ideology can be summed up in a couple words – Futurism and godhood.

Futurism is an ideological movement which believes that all “new” innovations, social or technological, should supplant the previous existing systems for the sake of progress. They believe that all old ways of thinking, including notions of principles, heritage, religious belief systems, codes of conduct, etc. are crutches holding humanity back from greatness.

But what is the greatness the futurists seek? As mentioned above, they want godhood. An era in which the natural world and human will is enslaved by the hands of a select few. Case in point – The following presentation from 2018 by WEF “guru” Yuval Harari on the future of humanity as the globalists see it:

Harari’s conclusions are rooted in elitist biases and ignore numerous psychological and social realities, but we can set those aside for a moment and examine his basic premise that humanity as we know it will no longer exist in the next century because of “digital evolution” and “human hacking.”

The foundation of the WEF vision is built on the idea that data is the new Holy Grail, the new conquest. This is something I have written about extensively in the past (check out my article ‘Artificial Intelligence: A Secular Look At The Digital Antichrist’) but it is good to see it expressed with such arrogance by someone like Harari because it is undeniable evidence – The globalists think they are going to build a completely centralized economy and society based on human data rather than production. In other words, YOU become the product. The average citizen, your thoughts and your behaviors, become the stock in trade.

Globalists also believe that data is most valuable because it can be exploited to control people’s behaviors, to hack the body and mind in order to create human puppets, or create super-beings. They dream of becoming little gods with omnipotent knowledge. Yuval even proudly proclaims that intelligent design will no longer be the realm of God in heaven, but of the new digitized man.

While Harari pays lip service to “democracy” vs “digital dictatorship”, he goes on to assert that centralization may become the defacto system of governance. He says this not because he fears dictatorship, but because that has always been the WEF’s intent. The globalist argues that governments cannot be trusted to hold a monopoly on the digital wellspring and that someone needs to step in to regulate data; but “who would do this?”, he asks.

He already knows the answer. The UN, a globalist edifice, has consistently said it should be the governing body that takes control of AI and data regulation through UNESCO. That is to say, Harari is playing coy, he knows that the people who will step in to control the data are people just like him.

At no point in Harari’s speech does he suggest that that any of these developments should be obstructed or stopped. At no point does he offer the idea that the digitization of humanity is wrong and that there are other better ways of living. He actually mocks the concept of “going back” to old ways; only the future and the Tabula Rasa (blank slate) hold promise for the globalists, everything else is an impediment to their designs.

But here’s the thing, what the globalists are trying to accomplish is a fantasy. People are not algorithms, despite how much Harari would like them to be. People have habits, yes, but they are also unpredictable and are prone to sudden awakenings and epiphanies in the moment of crisis.

Psychopaths tend to be robotic people, acting impulsively but also very predictably. They lack imagination, intuition and foresight, and so it’s not surprising that organizations of psychopaths like the WEF would place such an obsessive value on AI, algorithms and a cold technocratic evolution. They don’t view their data Shangri-La as humanity’s future; they see it as THEIR future – The future of the non-humans, or the anti-humans as it were.

Who will produce all the goods, services and necessities required in this brave new world? Well, all of us peons, of course. Sure, the globalists will offer grand promises of a robot driven production economy in which people no longer need to engage in menial labor, but this will be another lie. They’ll still need people to plant the crops, maintain infrastructure, take care of manufacturing, do their fighting for them, etc., they’ll just need less of us.

At bottom, an economy built on data is an economy dependent on illusion.

Data is vaporous and oftentimes meaningless because it is subject to the biases of the interpreter. Algorithms can also be programmed to the biases of the engineers. There is nothing inherently objective about data – it is all dependent on the intentions of the people analyzing it.

For example, to use Harari’s anecdote of an algorithm that “knows you are gay” before you do; any twisted group of people could simply write code for an algorithm that tells the majority of easily manipulated kids that they are gay, even when they are not. And, if you are gullible enough to believe the algorithm is infallible, then you could be led to believe that numerous falsehoods are true and be convinced to behave against your nature. You have allowed a biased digital phantom to dictate your identity, and have made yourself “hackable.”

In the meantime, the elitists entertain delusions of surpassing their mortal limitations by “hacking” the human body, as well as reading the minds of the masses and predicting the future based on data trends. This is an obsession which ignores the unpredictable wages of the human soul, that very element of conscience and of imagination which psychopaths lack. It’s something that cannot be hacked.

The legitimacy of the data based system and the hacking of humanity that the WEF aspires to is less important than what the masses can be convinced of. If the average person can be persuaded to implant their cell phone in their skull in the near future, then yes, humanity might become hackable in a rudimentary way.

The algorithms then supplant conscience, empathy and principles. And, without these things all morality becomes relative by default. Evil becomes good, and good becomes evil.

By the same token, if humanity can be persuaded to set down their cell phones and live a less tech focused life, then the digital empire of the globalists comes crashing down quite easily. There is no system the elites can impose that would make their digital consciousness a reality without the consent of the public at large.

Without a vast global framework in which people willingly embrace the algorithms rather than their own experience and intuitions, the globalist religion of total centralization dies. The first step is to accept that the conspiracy does indeed exist. The second step is to accept that the conspiracy is malicious and destructive. The third step is to refuse to comply, by whatever means necessary.

	Lara/Trace on Saturday Matinee: From He…
	lobotero on Saturday Matinee: From He…
	Lara/Trace on Saturday Matinee: The Wicker…
	Ms. Cat (Tina) on Saturday Matinee: The Wicker…
	Ms. Cat (Tina) on Saturday Matinee: The Zero…

After the Crash

Dispatches From a Long Recovery (Est. 10/2024)

Tag Archives: Transhumanism